RFC 9857 | Advertising SR Policies Using BGP-LS | September 2025 |
Previdi, et al. | Standards Track | [Page] |
This document describes a mechanism used to collect Segment Routing (SR) Policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) updates. Such information can be used by external components for path computation, reoptimization, service placement, network visualization, etc.¶
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9857.¶
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. 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.¶
SR Policy architecture details are specified in [RFC9256]. An SR Policy comprises one or more candidate paths of which at a given time one and only one may be active (i.e., installed in forwarding and usable for the steering of traffic). Each candidate path in turn may have one or more SID-Lists of which one or more SID-Lists may be active. When multiple SID-Lists are active, traffic is load balanced over them. This document covers the advertisement of state information at the individual SR Policy candidate path level.¶
SR Policies are generally instantiated at the headend and are based on either local configuration or controller-based programming of the node using various APIs and protocols (e.g., the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) or BGP).¶
In many network environments, the configuration and state of each SR Policy that is available in the network is required by controllers. Such controllers, which are aware of both topology and SR Policy state information, allow the network operator to optimize several functions and operations in their networks.¶
One example of a controller is the stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC8231], which can provide benefits in path optimization. While some extensions are proposed in the PCEP for Path Computation Clients (PCCs) to report Label Switched Path (LSP) states to the PCE, this mechanism may not be applicable in a management-based PCE architecture as specified in Section 5.5 of [RFC4655]. As illustrated in the figure below, the PCC is not a Label Switching Router (LSR) in the routing domain, thus the headend nodes of the SR Policies may not implement the PCEP protocol. In this case, a general mechanism to collect the SR Policy states from the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) is needed. This document proposes an SR Policy state collection mechanism complementary to the mechanism defined in [RFC8231].¶
----------- | ----- | Service | | TED |<-+-----------> Request | ----- | TED synchronization | | | | mechanism (e.g., the v | | | routing protocol) ------------- Request/ | v | | | Response| ----- | | NMS |<--------+> | PCE | | | | | ----- | ------------- ----------- Service | Request | v ---------- Signaling ---------- | Headend | Protocol | Adjacent | | Node |<---------->| Node | ---------- ----------
In networks with composite PCE nodes as specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC4655], PCE is implemented on several routers in the network, and the PCCs in the network can use the mechanism described in [RFC8231] to report the SR Policy information to the PCE nodes. An external component may also need to collect the SR Policy information from all the PCEs in the network to obtain a global view of the state of all SR Policy paths in the network.¶
In multi-area or multi-AS scenarios, each area or AS can have a child PCE to collect the SR Policies in its domain. In addition, a parent PCE needs to collect SR Policy information from multiple child PCEs to obtain a global view of SR Policy paths inside and across the domains involved.¶
In another network scenario, a centralized controller is used for service placement. Obtaining the SR Policy state information is quite important for making appropriate service placement decisions with the purpose of both meeting the application's requirements and utilizing network resources efficiently.¶
The Network Management System (NMS) may need to provide global visibility of the SR Policies in the network as part of the network visualization function.¶
BGP has been extended to distribute link-state and Traffic Engineering (TE) information to external components [RFC9552]. Using the same protocol to collect SR Policy and state information is desirable for these external components since this avoids introducing multiple protocols for network topology information collection. This document describes a mechanism to distribute SR Policy information (both SR-MPLS and SRv6 [RFC8402]) to external components using BGP-LS and covers both explicit and dynamic candidate paths. The advertisements of a composite candidate path are outside the scope of this document.¶
The BGP-LS Producer [RFC9552] that is originating the advertisement of SR Policy information can be either:¶
an SR Policy headend node or¶
a PCE that is receiving the SR Policy information from its PCCs (i.e., SR Policy headend nodes) via PCEP¶
The extensions specified in this document complement the BGP SR Policy SAFI [RFC9830] [RFC9831] and are used to advertise SR Policies from controllers to the headend routers using BGP by enabling the reporting of the operational state of those SR Policies back from the headend to the controllers.¶
While this document focuses on SR Policies, [BGP-LS-TE-PATH] introduces further extensions to support other TE paths such as MPLS-TE LSPs.¶
The encodings specified in this document (specifically in Sections 4 and 5) make use of flags that convey various types of information of the SR Policy. The document uses the term "set" to indicate that the value of a flag bit is 1 and the term "clear" when the value is 0.¶
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.¶
The "Link-State Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI)" defined in [RFC9552] is extended to carry the SR Policy information. New TLVs carried in the BGP-LS Attribute defined in [RFC9552] are also defined to carry the attributes of an SR Policy in the subsequent sections.¶
The format of the Link-State NLRI is defined in [RFC9552] as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NLRI Type | Total NLRI Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Link-State NLRI (variable) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
An additional NLRI Type known as "SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI" (value 5) is defined for the advertisement of SR Policy Information.¶
This SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI is used to report the state details of individual SR Policy Candidate paths along with their underlying segment lists.¶
This document defines the SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI Type with its format as shown in the following figure:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identifier | | (64 bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Local Node Descriptors TLV (for the Headend) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // SR Policy Candidate Path Descriptor TLV // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
Protocol-ID field specifies the component that owns the SR Policy state in the advertising node. An additional Protocol-ID "Segment Routing" (value 9) is introduced by this document that MUST be used for the advertisement of SR Policies.¶
"Identifier" is an 8-octet value as defined in Section 5.2 of [RFC9552].¶
"Local Node Descriptors" (TLV 256) [RFC9552] is used as specified further in this section.¶
The SR Policy Candidate Path Descriptor TLV is specified in Section 4.¶
The Local Node Descriptors TLV carries information that only identifies the headend node of the SR Policy irrespective of whether the BGP-LS Producer is a headend or a PCE node.¶
The Local Node Descriptors TLV MUST include at least one of the following Node Descriptor TLVs:¶
IPv4 Router-ID of Local Node (TLV 1028) [RFC9552], which identifies the headend node of the SR Policy as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].¶
IPv6 Router-ID of Local Node (TLV 1029) [RFC9552], which identifies the headend node of the SR Policy as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].¶
The following subsections describe the encoding of sub-TLVs within the Local Node Descriptors TLV depending on which node is the BGP-LS Producer.¶
The Local Node Descriptors TLV MUST include the following Node Descriptor TLVs when the headend node is the BGP-LS Producer:¶
BGP Router-ID (TLV 516) [RFC9086], which contains a valid BGP Identifier of the headend node of the SR Policy.¶
Autonomous System (TLV 512) [RFC9552], which contains the Autonomous System Number (ASN) (or AS Confederation Identifier [RFC5065], if confederations are used) of the headend node of the SR Policy.¶
The Local Node Descriptors TLV MAY include the following Node Descriptor TLVs when the headend node is the BGP-LS Producer:¶
BGP Confederation Member (TLV 517) [RFC9086], which contains the ASN of the confederation member (i.e., Member-AS Number); if BGP confederations are used, it contains the headend node of the SR Policy.¶
Other Node Descriptors as defined in [RFC9552] to identify the headend node of the SR Policy. The determination of whether the IGP Router-ID sub-TLV (TLV 515) contains a 4-octet OSPF Router-ID or a 6-octet ISO System-ID is to be done based on the length of that sub-TLV as the Protocol-ID in the NLRI is always going to be "Segment Routing".¶
The PCE node MUST NOT include its identifiers in the Node Descriptor TLV in the NLRI as the Node Descriptor TLV MUST only carry the identifiers of the SR Policy headend.¶
The Local Node Descriptors TLV MAY include the following Node Descriptor TLVs when the PCE node is the BGP-LS Producer and it has this information about the headend (e.g., as part of its topology database):¶
BGP Router-ID (TLV 516) [RFC9086], which contains a valid BGP Identifier of the headend node of the SR Policy.¶
Autonomous System (TLV 512) [RFC9552], which contains the ASN (or AS Confederation Identifier [RFC5065], if confederations are used) of the headend node of the SR Policy.¶
BGP Confederation Member (TLV 517) [RFC9086], which contains the ASN of the confederation member (i.e., Member-AS Number); if BGP confederations are used, it contains the headend node of the SR Policy.¶
Other Node Descriptors as defined in [RFC9552] to identify the headend node of the SR Policy. The determination of whether the IGP Router-ID sub-TLV (TLV 515) contains a 4-octet OSPF Router-ID or a 6-octet ISO System-ID is to be done based on the length of that sub-TLV since the Protocol-ID in the NLRI is always going to be "Segment Routing".¶
When a PCE node is functioning as the BGP-LS Producer on behalf of one or more headends, it MAY include its own BGP Router-ID (TLV 516), Autonomous System (TLV 512), or BGP Confederation Member (TLV 517) in the BGP-LS Attribute.¶
The SR Policy Candidate Path Descriptor TLV identifies an SR Policy candidate path as defined in [RFC9256]. It is a mandatory TLV for the SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI type. The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Protocol-Origin| Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Endpoint (4 or 16 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Policy Color (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Originator AS Number (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Originator Address (4 or 16 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Discriminator (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
1-octet field with the following bit positions defined. Other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E|O| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
This section defines the various TLVs that enable the headend to report the state at the SR Policy candidate path level. These TLVs (and their sub-TLVs) are carried in the optional non-transitive BGP-LS Attribute defined in [RFC9552] and are associated with the SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI type.¶
The detailed procedures for the advertisement are described in Section 6.¶
The SR Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is an optional TLV that is used to report the BSID and its attributes for the SR Policy candidate path. The TLV MAY also optionally contain the Specified BSID value for reporting as described in Section 6.2.3 of [RFC9256]. Only a single instance of this TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BSID Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Binding SID (4 or 16 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Specified Binding SID (4 or 16 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
2-octet field that indicates the attribute and status of the Binding SID (BSID) associated with this candidate path. The following bit positions are defined, and the semantics are described in detail in Section 6.2 of [RFC9256]. Other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D|B|U|L|F| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
The BSID fields above depend on the data plane (SRv6 or MPLS) indicated by the D-Flag. If the D-Flag is set (SRv6 data plane), then the length of the BSID fields is 16 octets. If the D-Flag is clear (MPLS data plane), then the length of the BSID fields is 4 octets. When carrying the MPLS Label, as shown in the figure below, the TC, S, and TTL (total of 12 bits) are RESERVED and MUST be set to 0 by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In the case of an SRv6, the SR Binding SID sub-TLV does not have the ability to signal the SRv6 Endpoint behavior [RFC8986] or the structure of the SID. Therefore, the SR Binding SID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be used for the advertisement of an SRv6 Binding SID. Instead, the SRv6 Binding SID TLV defined in Section 5.2 SHOULD be used for the signaling of an SRv6 Binding SID. The use of the SR Binding SID sub-TLV for advertisement of the SRv6 Binding SID has been deprecated, and it is documented here only for backward compatibility with implementations that followed early draft versions of this specification.¶
The SRv6 Binding SID (BSID) is an optional TLV that is used to report the SRv6 BSID and its attributes for the SR Policy candidate path. The TLV MAY also optionally contain the Specified SRv6 BSID value for reporting as described in Section 6.2.3 of [RFC9256]. Multiple instances of this TLV may be used to report each of the SRv6 BSIDs associated with the candidate path.¶
The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BSID Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Binding SID (16 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Specified Binding SID (16 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Sub-TLVs (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
2-octet field that indicates the attribute and status of the BSID associated with this candidate path. The following bit positions are defined, and the semantics are described in detail in Section 6.2 of [RFC9256]. Other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|U|F| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV (1250) and the SRv6 SID Structure TLV (1252) MAY optionally be used as sub-TLVs of the SRv6 Binding SID TLV to indicate the SRv6 Endpoint behavior and SID structure for the Binding SID value in the TLV. [RFC9514] defines the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV and the SRv6 SID Structure TLV.¶
The SR Candidate Path State TLV provides the operational status and attributes of the SR Policy at the candidate path level. Only a single instance of this TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Priority | RESERVED | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preference (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
2-octet field that indicates the attribute and status of the candidate path. The following bit positions are defined, and the semantics are described in Section 5 of [RFC9256] unless stated otherwise for individual flags. Other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|A|B|E|V|O|D|C|I|T|U| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
The SR Policy Name TLV is an optional TLV that is used to carry the symbolic name associated with the SR Policy. Only a single instance of this TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SR Policy Name (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR Candidate Path Name TLV is an optional TLV that is used to carry the symbolic name associated with the candidate path. Only a single instance of this TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Candidate Path Name (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR Candidate Path Constraints TLV is an optional TLV that is used to report the constraints associated with the candidate path. The constraints are generally applied to a dynamic candidate path that is computed either by the headend or may be delegated to a controller. The constraints may also be applied to an explicit path where the computation entity is expected to validate that the path satisfies the specified constraints; if not, the path is to be invalidated (e.g., due to topology changes). Only a single instance of this TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | RESERVED1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MTID | Algorithm | RESERVED2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLVs (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
2-octet field that indicates the constraints that are being applied to the candidate path. The following bit positions are defined, and the other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D|P|U|A|T|S|F|H| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
These constraint sub-TLVs are defined below.¶
The SR Affinity Constraint sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the SR Candidate Path Constraints TLV that is used to carry the affinity constraints [RFC2702] associated with the candidate path. The affinity is expressed in terms of an Extended Administrative Group (EAG) as defined in [RFC7308]. Only a single instance of this sub-TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The sub-TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Excl-Any-Size | Incl-Any-Size | Incl-All-Size | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Exclude-Any EAG (optional, variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Include-Any EAG (optional, variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Include-All EAG (optional, variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR SRLG Constraint sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the SR Candidate Path Constraints TLV that is used to carry the SRLG values [RFC4202] that have been excluded from the candidate path. Only a single instance of this sub-TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The sub-TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SRLG Values (variable, multiples of 4 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the SR Candidate Path Constraints TLV that is used to indicate the bandwidth that has been requested for the candidate path. Only a single instance of this sub-TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The sub-TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR Disjoint Group Constraint sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the SR Candidate Path Constraints TLV that is used to carry the disjointness constraint associated with the candidate path. The disjointness between two SR Policy Candidate Paths is expressed by associating them with the same disjoint group identifier and then specifying the type of disjointness required between their paths. The types of disjointness are described in Section 3 of [RFC8800] where the level of disjointness increases in the order: link, node, SRLG, Node + SRLG. The computation is expected to achieve the highest level of disjointness requested; when that is not possible, then fall back to a lesser level progressively based on the levels indicated. Only a single instance of this sub-TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The sub-TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Request-Flags | Status-Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Disjoint Group Identifier (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
1 octet to indicate the level of disjointness requested as specified in the form of flags. The following flags are defined, and the other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|N|L|F|I| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
1 octet to indicate the level of disjointness that has been achieved by the computation as specified in the form of flags. The following flags are defined, and the other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|N|L|F|I|X| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
The SR Bidirectional Group Constraint sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the SR Candidate Path Constraints TLV that is used to carry the bidirectional constraint associated with the candidate path. The bidirectional relationship between two SR Policy Candidate Paths is expressed by associating them with the same bidirectional group identifier and then specifying the type of bidirectional routing required between their paths. Only a single instance of this sub-TLV is advertised for a given candidate path. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
The sub-TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bidirectional Group Identifier (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
2 octets to indicate the bidirectional path setup information as specified in the form of flags. The following flags are defined, and the other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |R|C| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
The SR Metric Constraint sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the SR Candidate Path Constraints TLV that is used to report the optimization metric of the candidate path. For a dynamic path computation, it is used to report the optimization metric used along with its parameters. For an explicit path, this sub-TLV MAY be used to report the metric margin or is bound to be used for validation (i.e., the path is invalidated if the metric is beyond specified values). Multiple instances of this sub-TLV may be used to report different metric type uses.¶
The sub-TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Metric Type | Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Metric Margin | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Metric Bound | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
1-octet field that identifies the type of metric being used. Table 1 lists the metric types introduced by this document along with reference for each. Where the references are for IS-IS and OSPF specifications, those metric types are defined for a link while in the SR Policy context those relate to the candidate path or the segment list. The metric type code points that may be used in this sub-TLV are also listed in Section 8.6 of this document. Note that the metric type in this field is not taken from the "IGP Metric-Type" registry from IANA "IGP Parameters" and is a separate registry that includes IGP Metric Types as well as metric types specific to SR Policy path computation. Additional metric types may be introduced by future documents. This document does not make any assumptions about a smaller metric value being better than a higher metric value; that is something that is dependent on the semantics of the specific metric type. This document uses the words "best" and "worst" to abstract this aspect when referring to metric margins and bounds.¶
1-octet field that indicates the validity of the metric fields and their semantics. The following bit positions are defined, and the other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |O|M|A|B| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
The absolute metric margin and the metric bound values are encoded as specified for each metric type. For metric types that are smaller than 4 octets in size, the most significant bits are filled with zeros. The percentage metric margin is encoded as an unsigned integer percentage value.¶
The SR Segment List TLV is used to report a single SID-List of a candidate path. Multiple instances of this TLV may be used to report multiple SID-Lists of a candidate path.¶
The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MTID | Algorithm | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Weight (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLVs (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
2-octet field that indicates the attribute and status of the SID-List. The following bit positions are defined, and the semantics are described in detail in [RFC9256]. Other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D|E|C|V|R|F|A|T|M| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
The SR Segment sub-TLV (defined in Section 5.7.1) MUST be included as an ordered set of sub-TLVs within the SR Segment List TLV when the SID-List is not empty. A SID-List may be empty in certain situations (e.g., for a dynamic path) where the headend has not yet performed the computation and hence not derived the segments required for the path. In such cases where the SID-LIST is empty, the SR Segment List TLV MUST NOT include any SR Segment sub-TLVs.¶
The SR Segment sub-TLV describes a single segment in a SID-List. One or more instances of this sub-TLV in an ordered manner constitute a SID-List for an SR Policy candidate path. It is a sub-TLV of the SR Segment List TLV and it has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Segment Type | RESERVED | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SID (4 or 16 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Segment Descriptor (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Sub-TLVs (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
2-octet field that indicates the attribute and status of the Segment and its SID. The following bit positions are defined, and the semantics are described in Section 5 of [RFC9256]. Other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|E|V|R|A| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
4 octets carrying the MPLS Label or 16 octets carrying the SRv6 SID based on the Segment Type. When carrying the MPLS Label, as shown in the figure below, the TC, S, and TTL (total of 12 bits) are RESERVED and MUST be set to 0 by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV (1250) and the SRv6 SID Structure TLV (1252) defined in [RFC9514] are used as sub-sub-TLVs of the SR Segment sub-TLV. These two sub-sub-TLVs are used to optionally indicate the SRv6 Endpoint behavior and SID structure when advertising the SRv6-specific segment types.¶
Section 4 of [RFC9256] defines multiple types of segments and their descriptions. This section defines the encoding of the Segment Descriptors for each of those segment types to be used in the Segment sub-TLV described previously in Section 5.7.1.¶
The following types are currently defined, and their mappings to the respective segment types are defined in [RFC9256]:¶
Type | Segment Description |
---|---|
1 | (Type A) SR-MPLS Label |
2 | (Type B) SRv6 SID as IPv6 address |
3 | (Type C) SR-MPLS Prefix SID as IPv4 Node Address |
4 | (Type D) SR-MPLS Prefix SID as IPv6 Node Global Address |
5 | (Type E) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as IPv4 Node Address & Local Interface ID |
6 | (Type F) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as IPv4 Local & Remote Interface Addresses |
7 | (Type G) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of IPv6 Global Address & Interface ID for Local & Remote nodes |
8 | (Type H) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of IPv6 Global Addresses for the Local & Remote Interface |
9 | (Type I) SRv6 END SID as IPv6 Node Global Address |
10 | (Type J) SRv6 END.X SID as pair of IPv6 Global Address & Interface ID for Local & Remote nodes |
11 | (Type K) SRv6 END.X SID as pair of IPv6 Global Addresses for the Local & Remote Interface |
The Segment is an SR-MPLS type and is specified simply as the label. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Algorithm | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SRv6 type and is specified simply as the SRv6 SID address. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Algorithm | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SR-MPLS Prefix SID type and is specified as an IPv4 node address. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Algorithm | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Node Address (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SR-MPLS Prefix SID type and is specified as an IPv6 node global address. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Algorithm | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | IPv6 Node Global Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SR-MPLS Adjacency SID type and is specified as an IPv4 node address along with the local interface ID on that node. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Node Address (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Interface ID (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SR-MPLS Adjacency SID type and is specified as a pair of IPv4 local and remote interface addresses. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Local Address (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Remote Address (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SR-MPLS Adjacency SID type and is specified as a pair of IPv6 global address and interface ID for local and remote nodes. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | IPv6 Local Node Global Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Node Interface ID (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | IPv6 Remote Node Global Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote Node Interface ID (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SR-MPLS Adjacency SID type and is specified as a pair of IPv6 global addresses for local and remote interface addresses. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Global IPv6 Local Interface Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Global IPv6 Remote Interface Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SRv6 END SID type and is specified as an IPv6 node global address. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Algorithm | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | IPv6 Node Global Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SRv6 END.X SID type and is specified as a pair of IPv6 global address and interface ID for local and remote nodes. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | IPv6 Local Node Global Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Node Interface ID (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | IPv6 Remote Node Global Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote Node Interface ID (4 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment is an SRv6 END.X SID type and is specified as a pair of IPv6 global addresses for local and remote interface addresses. The format of its Segment Descriptor is as follows:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Global IPv6 Local Interface Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Global IPv6 Remote Interface Address (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR Segment List Metric sub-TLV reports the computed metric of the specific SID-List. It is used to report the type of metric and its computed value by the computation entity (i.e., either the headend or the controller when the path is delegated) when available. More than one instance of this sub-TLV may be present in the SR Segment List to report metric values of different metric types. The metric margin and bound may be optionally reported using this sub-TLV when this information is not being reported using the SR Metric Constraint sub-TLV (refer to Section 5.6.6) at the SR Policy candidate path level.¶
It is a sub-TLV of the SR Segment List TLV and has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Metric Type | Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Metric Margin | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Metric Bound | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Metric Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
1-octet field that indicates the validity of the metric fields and their semantics. The following bit positions are defined, and the other bits MUST be cleared by the originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver.¶
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|A|B|V| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Where:¶
The absolute metric margin, metric bound, and metric values are encoded as specified for each metric type. For metric types that are smaller than 4 octets in size, the most significant bits are filled with zeros. The percentage metric margin is encoded as an unsigned integer percentage value.¶
The SR Segment List Bandwidth sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV used to report the bandwidth allocated to the specific SID-List by the path computation entity. Only a single instance of this sub-TLV is advertised for a given Segment List. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
It is a sub-TLV of the SR Segment List TLV and has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR Segment List Identifier sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV used to report an identifier associated with the specific SID-List. Only a single instance of this sub-TLV is advertised for a given Segment List. If multiple instances are present, then the first valid one (i.e., not determined to be malformed as per Section 8.2.2 of [RFC9552]) is used and the rest are ignored.¶
It is a sub-TLV of the SR Segment List TLV and has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Segment List Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The BGP-LS advertisements for the SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI type are generally originated by the headend node for the SR Policies that are instantiated on its local node (i.e., the headend is the BGP-LS Producer). The BGP-LS Producer may also be a node (e.g., a PCE) that is advertising on behalf of the headend.¶
For the reporting of SR Policy Candidate Paths, the NLRI descriptor TLV as specified in Section 4 is used. An SR Policy candidate path may be instantiated on the headend node via a local configuration, PCEP, or BGP SR Policy signaling, and this is indicated via the SR Protocol Origin. When a PCE node is the BGP-LS Producer, it uses the "in PCEP" variants of the SR Protocol Origin (where available) so as to distinguish them from advertisements by headend nodes. The SR Policy Candidate Path's state and attributes are encoded in the BGP-LS Attribute field as SR Policy State TLVs and sub-TLVs as described in Section 5. The SR Candidate Path State TLV as defined in Section 5.3 is included to report the state of the candidate path. The SR BSID TLV as defined in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 is included to report the BSID of the candidate path when one is either specified or allocated by the headend. The constraints and the optimization metric for the SR Policy Candidate Path are reported using the SR Candidate Path Constraints TLV and its sub-TLVs as described in Section 5.6. The SR Segment List TLV is included for each SID-List(s) associated with the candidate path. Each SR Segment List TLV in turn includes an SR Segment sub-TLV(s) to report the segment(s) and its status. The SR Segment List Metric sub-TLV is used to report the metric values at an individual SID List level.¶
The existing BGP operational and management procedures apply to this document. No new procedures are defined in this document. The considerations as specified in [RFC9552] apply to this document.¶
In general, the SR Policy headend nodes are responsible for the advertisement of SR Policy state information.¶
This section describes the code point allocations by IANA for this document.¶
IANA maintains a registry called "BGP-LS NLRI Types" under the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" registry group.¶
The following NLRI Type code point has been allocated by IANA:¶
Type | NLRI Type | Reference |
---|---|---|
5 | SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI | RFC 9857 |
IANA maintains a registry called "BGP-LS Protocol-IDs" under the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" registry group.¶
The following Protocol-ID code point has been allocated by IANA:¶
Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol | Reference |
---|---|---|
9 | Segment Routing | RFC 9857 |
IANA maintains a registry called "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" under the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" registry group.¶
The following table lists the TLV code points that have been allocated by IANA:¶
TLV Code Point | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
554 | SR Policy Candidate Path Descriptor | RFC 9857 |
1201 | SR Binding SID | RFC 9857 |
1202 | SR Candidate Path State | RFC 9857 |
1203 | SR Candidate Path Name | RFC 9857 |
1204 | SR Candidate Path Constraints | RFC 9857 |
1205 | SR Segment List | RFC 9857 |
1206 | SR Segment | RFC 9857 |
1207 | SR Segment List Metric | RFC 9857 |
1208 | SR Affinity Constraint | RFC 9857 |
1209 | SR SRLG Constraint | RFC 9857 |
1210 | SR Bandwidth Constraint | RFC 9857 |
1211 | SR Disjoint Group Constraint | RFC 9857 |
1212 | SRv6 Binding SID | RFC 9857 |
1213 | SR Policy Name | RFC 9857 |
1214 | SR Bidirectional Group Constraint | RFC 9857 |
1215 | SR Metric Constraint | RFC 9857 |
1216 | SR Segment List Bandwidth | RFC 9857 |
1217 | SR Segment List Identifier | RFC 9857 |
Per this document, IANA has created and maintains a new registry called "SR Policy Protocol Origin" under the "Segment Routing" registry group with the allocation policy of Expert Review [RFC8126] using the guidelines for designated experts as specified in [RFC9256]. This registry contains the code points allocated to the "Protocol Origin" field defined in Section 4.¶
IANA has assigned the initial values as follows:¶
Code Point | Protocol Origin | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Reserved | RFC 9857 |
1 | PCEP | RFC 9857 |
2 | BGP SR Policy | RFC 9857 |
3 | Configuration (CLI, YANG model via NETCONF, etc.) | RFC 9857 |
4-9 | Unassigned | RFC 9857 |
10 | PCEP (in PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE) | RFC 9857 |
11-19 | Unassigned | RFC 9857 |
20 | BGP SR Policy (in PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE) | RFC 9857 |
21-29 | Unassigned | RFC 9857 |
30 | Configuration (CLI, YANG model via NETCONF, etc. In PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE) | RFC 9857 |
31-250 | Unassigned | RFC 9857 |
251-255 | Reserved for Private Use | RFC 9857 |
Per this document, IANA has created a registry called "BGP-LS SR Segment Descriptor Types" under the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" registry group with the allocation policy of Expert Review [RFC8126] using the guidelines for designated experts as specified in [RFC9552]. There is also an additional guideline for the designated experts to maintain the alignment between the allocations in this registry with those in the "Segment Types" registry under the "Segment Routing" registry group. This requires that an allocation in the Segment Routing "Segment Types" registry is required before allocation can be done in the "BGP-LS SR Segment Descriptor Types" registry for a new segment type. However, this does not mandate that the specification of a new Segment Routing Segment Type also requires the specification of its equivalent SR Segment Descriptor Type in BGP-LS; that can be done as and when required while maintaining alignment.¶
This registry contains the code points allocated to the "Segment Type" field defined in Section 5.7.1 and described in Section 5.7.1.1. IANA has assigned the initial values as follows:¶
Code Point | Segment Descriptor | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Reserved | RFC 9857 |
1 | (Type A) SR-MPLS Label | RFC 9857 |
2 | (Type B) SRv6 SID as IPv6 address | RFC 9857 |
3 | (Type C) SR-MPLS Prefix SID as IPv4 Node Address | RFC 9857 |
4 | (Type D) SR-MPLS Prefix SID as IPv6 Node Global Address | RFC 9857 |
5 | (Type E) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as IPv4 Node Address & Local Interface ID | RFC 9857 |
6 | (Type F) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as IPv4 Local & Remote Interface Addresses | RFC 9857 |
7 | (Type G) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of IPv6 Global Address & Interface ID for Local & Remote nodes | RFC 9857 |
8 | (Type H) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of IPv6 Global Addresses for the Local & Remote Interface | RFC 9857 |
9 | (Type I) SRv6 END SID as IPv6 Node Global Address | RFC 9857 |
10 | (Type J) SRv6 END.X SID as pair of IPv6 Global Address & Interface ID for Local & Remote nodes | RFC 9857 |
11 | (Type K) SRv6 END.X SID as pair of IPv6 Global Addresses for the Local & Remote Interface | RFC 9857 |
12-255 | Unassigned | RFC 9857 |
Per this document, IANA has created a registry called "BGP-LS SR Policy Metric Types" under the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" registry group with the allocation policy of Expert Review [RFC8126] using the guidelines for designated experts as specified in [RFC9552]. This registry contains the code points allocated to the "Metric Type" field defined in Section 5.7.2. IANA has assigned the initial values as follows:¶
Code Point | Metric Type | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | IGP | RFC 9857 |
1 | Min Unidirectional Delay | RFC 9857 |
2 | TE | RFC 9857 |
3 | Hop Count | RFC 9857 |
4 | SID List Length | RFC 9857 |
5 | Bandwidth | RFC 9857 |
6 | Avg Unidirectional Delay | RFC 9857 |
7 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | RFC 9857 |
8 | Loss | RFC 9857 |
9-127 | Unassigned | RFC 9857 |
128-255 | User Defined | RFC 9857 |
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the base BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details. The security considerations of the base BGP-LS specification as described in [RFC9552] also apply.¶
The BGP-LS SR Policy extensions specified in this document enable TE and service programming use cases within an SR domain as described in [RFC9256]. SR operates within a trusted SR domain [RFC8402], and its security considerations also apply to BGP sessions when carrying SR Policy information. The SR Policies advertised to controllers and other applications via BGP-LS are expected to be used entirely within this trusted SR domain, i.e., within a single AS or between multiple ASes/domains within a single provider network. Therefore, precaution is necessary to ensure that the SR Policy information advertised via BGP sessions is limited to nodes and/or controllers/applications in a secure manner within this trusted SR domain. The general guidance for BGP-LS with respect to isolation of BGP-LS sessions from BGP sessions for other address-families (refer to the security considerations of [RFC9552]) may be used to ensure that the SR Policy information is not advertised to an External BGP (EBGP) peering session outside the SR domain by accident or error.¶
Additionally, it may be considered that the export of SR Policy information, as described in this document, constitutes a risk to the confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially sensitive information about the network (more specifically, endpoint/node addresses, SR SIDs, and the SR Policies deployed). BGP peerings are not automatic and require configuration. Thus, it is the responsibility of the network operator to ensure that only trusted nodes (that include both routers and controller applications) within the SR domain are configured to receive such information.¶
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody, Mohammed Abdul Aziz Khalid, Lou Berger, Acee Lindem, Siva Sivabalan, Arjun Sreekantiah, Dhanendra Jain, Francois Clad, Zafar Ali, Stephane Litkowski, Aravind Babu Mahendra Babu, Geetanjalli Bhalla, Ahmed Bashandy, Mike Koldychev, Samuel Sidor, Alex Tokar, Rajesh Melarcode Venkatesswaran, Lin Changwang, Liu Yao, Joel Halpern, and Ned Smith for their reviews and valuable comments. The authors would also like to thank Susan Hares for her shepherd review and helpful comments to improve this document. The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his AD review and helpful suggestions to improve this document.¶
The following people have contributed substantially to the content of this document and should be considered coauthors:¶