Ciena Corporation

385 Terry Fox Dr. Kanata Ontario K2K 0L1 Canada mkoldych@proton.me

Ciena Corporation

385 Terry Fox Dr. Kanata Ontario K2K 0L1 Canada ssivabal@ciena.com

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Eurovea Central 3. Bratislava 811 09 Slovakia ssidor@cisco.com

Juniper Networks, Inc.

cbarth@juniper.net

Huawei Technologies

Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China pengshuping@huawei.com

Nokia

hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com

RTG PCE PCEP SR Policy Candidate Path A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of instructions called "segments" that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated. An SR Policy is made of one or more Candidate Paths. This document specifies the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension to signal Candidate Paths of an SR Policy. Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow delegation and setup of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP) without using the path computation request and reply messages. This document is applicable to both Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6).

Status of This Memo 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 .

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 () 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.

Table of Contents

• .  Introduction
  • .  Requirements Language
• .  Terminology
• .  Overview
• .  SR Policy Association (SRPA)
  • .  SR Policy Identifier
  • .  SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier
  • .  SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes
  • .  Association Parameters
  • .  Association Information
    • .  SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV
    • .  SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV
    • .  SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV
    • .  SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV
• .  SR Policy Signaling Extensions
  • .  SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV
  • .  LSP Object TLVs
    • .  COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV
    • .  EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV
    • .  INVALIDATION TLV
      • .  Drop-Upon-Invalid Applies to SR Policy
  • .  Updates to RFC 8231
• .  IANA Considerations
  • .  Association Type
  • .  PCEP TLV Type Indicators
  • .  PCEP Errors
  • .  TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag Field
  • .  SR Policy Invalidation Operational State
  • .  SR Policy Invalidation Configuration State
  • .  SR Policy Capability TLV Flag Field
• .  Security Considerations
• .  Manageability Considerations
  • .  Control of Function and Policy
  • .  Information and Data Models
  • .  Liveness Detection and Monitoring
  • .  Verify Correct Operations
  • .  Requirements on Other Protocols
  • .  Impact on Network Operations
• .  References
  • .  Normative References
  • .  Informative References
• Acknowledgements
• Contributors
• Authors' Addresses

Introduction "Segment Routing Policy Architecture" details the concepts of Segment Routing (SR) Policy and approaches to steering traffic into an SR Policy. "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing" specifies extensions to the PCEP that allow a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to compute and initiate Traffic Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization criteria in an SR domain. Although PCEP extensions introduced in enable the creation of SR-TE paths, these do not constitute SR Policies as defined in . Therefore, they lack support for:

• Association of SR Policy Candidate Paths signaled via PCEP with Candidate Paths of the same SR Policy signaled via other sources (e.g., local configuration or BGP).
• Association of an SR Policy with an intent via color, enabling headend-based steering of BGP service routes over SR Policies provisioned via PCEP.

"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs)" introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs that is called an "Association". An SR Policy is associated with one or more Candidate Paths. A Candidate Path is the unit for signaling an SR Policy to a headend as described in . This document extends to support signaling SR Policy Candidate Paths as LSPs and to signal Candidate Path membership in an SR Policy by means of the Association mechanism. A PCEP Association corresponds to an SR Policy and an LSP corresponds to a Candidate Path. The unit of signaling in PCEP is the LSP, thus, all the information related to an SR Policy is carried at the Candidate Path level. Also, this document updates , making the use of Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path Computation Reply (PCRep) messages optional for LSPs that are set up using Path Setup Type 1 (for Segment Routing) and Path Setup Type 3 (for SRv6) with the aim of reducing the PCEP message exchanges and simplifying implementation.

Requirements Language 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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Terminology This document uses the following terms defined in :

• Explicit Route Object (ERO)
• Path Computation Client (PCC)
• Path Computation Element (PCE)
• PCEP Peer
• PCEP speaker

This document uses the following term defined in :

• Label Switched Path (LSP)

This document uses the following term defined in :

• Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)

The following other terms are used in this document:

Endpoint:

The IPv4 or IPv6 endpoint address of an SR Policy, as described in .

Color:

The 32-bit color of an SR Policy, as described in .

Protocol-Origin:

The protocol that was used to create a Candidate Path, as described in .

Originator:

A device that created a Candidate Path, as described in .

Discriminator:

Distinguishes Candidate Paths created by the same device, as described in .

Association parameters:

Refers to the key data that uniquely identifies an Association, as described in .

Association information:

Refers to information related to Association Type, as described in .

SR Policy LSP:

An LSP setup using Path Setup Type 1 (for Segment Routing) or 3 (for SRv6).

SR Policy Association (SRPA):

A new Association Type used to group Candidate Paths belonging to the same SR Policy. Depending on the discussion context, it can refer to the PCEP ASSOCIATION object of an SR Policy type or to a group of LSPs that belong to the association.

The base PCEP specification originally defined the use of the PCE architecture for MPLS and GMPLS networks with LSPs instantiated using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol. Over time, support for additional path setup types such as SRv6 has been introduced . The term "LSP" is used extensively in PCEP specifications, and in the context of this document, refers to a Candidate Path within an SR Policy, which may be an SRv6 path (still represented using the LSP object as specified in ).

Overview The SR Policy is represented by a new type of PCEP Association, called the SR Policy Association (SRPA) (see ). The SR Policy Candidate Paths of a specific SR Policy are the LSPs within the same SRPA. The extensions in this document specify the encoding of a single segment list within an SR Policy Candidate Path. Encoding of multiple segment lists is outside the scope of this document and is specified in . An SRPA carries three pieces of information: SR Policy Identifier, SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier, and SR Policy Candidate Path Attribute(s). This document also specifies some additional information that is not encoded as part of an SRPA: computation priority of the LSP, Explicit NULL Label Policy for the unlabeled IP packets and Drop-Upon-Invalid behavior for traffic steering when the LSP is operationally down (see ).

SR Policy Association (SRPA) Per , LSPs are associated with other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common association group. An association group is uniquely identified by the combination of the following fields in the ASSOCIATION object (): Association Type, Association ID, Association Source, and (if present) Global Association Source, or Extended Association ID. These fields are referred to as "association parameters" (). specifies the ASSOCIATION object with two Object-Types for IPv4 and IPv6 that includes the field Association Type. This document defines a new Association Type (6) "SR Policy Association" for an SRPA. specifies the mechanism for the capability advertisement of the Association Types supported by a PCEP speaker by defining an ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an OPEN object. This capability exchange for the SRPA Type MUST be done before using the SRPA. To that aim, a PCEP speaker MUST include the SRPA Type (6) in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV and MUST receive the same from the PCEP peer before using the SRPA (). An SRPA MUST be assigned for all SR Policy LSPs by the PCEP speaker originating the LSP if the capability was advertised by both PCEP speakers. If the above condition is not satisfied, then the receiving PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with:

• Error-Type = 6 "Mandatory Object Missing"
• Error-value = 22 "Missing SR Policy Association"

A given LSP MUST belong to one SRPA at most, since an SR Policy Candidate Path cannot belong to multiple SR Policies. If a PCEP speaker receives a PCEP message requesting to join more than one SRPA for the same LSP, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with:

• Error-Type = 26 "Association Error"
• Error-value = 7 "Cannot join the association group"

The existing behavior for the use of Binding SID (BSID) with an SR Policy is already documented in . If BSID value allocation failed because of conflict with the BSID used by another policy, then the PCEP peer MUST send a PCErr message with:

• Error-Type = 32 "Binding label/SID failure"
• Error-value = 2 "Unable to allocate the specified binding value"

SR Policy Identifier The SR Policy Identifier uniquely identifies an SR Policy within the SR domain. The SR Policy Identifier is assigned by the PCEP peer originating the LSP and MUST be uniform across all the PCEP sessions. Candidate Paths within an SR Policy MUST carry the same SR Policy Identifiers in their SRPAs. Candidate Paths within an SR Policy MUST NOT change their SR Policy Identifiers for the lifetime of the PCEP session. If the above conditions are not satisfied, the receiving PCEP speaker MUST send a PCEP Error (PCErr) message with:

• Error-Type = 26 "Association Error"
• Error-value = 20 "SR Policy Identifier Mismatch"

The SR Policy Identifier consists of:

• Headend router where the SR Policy originates.
• Color of the SR Policy ().
• Endpoint of the SR Policy ().

SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier The SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier uniquely identifies the SR Policy Candidate Path within the context of an SR Policy. The SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier is assigned by the PCEP peer originating the LSP. Candidate Paths within an SR Policy MUST NOT change their SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers for the lifetime of the PCEP session. Two or more Candidate Paths within an SR Policy MUST NOT carry the same SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers in their SRPAs. If the above conditions are not satisfied, the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with:

• Error-Type = 26 "Association Error"
• Error-value = 21 "SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier Mismatch"

The SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier consists of:

• Protocol-Origin ()
• Originator ()
• Discriminator ()

SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes carry optional, non-key information about a Candidate Path and MAY change during the lifetime of an LSP. SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes consist of:

• Candidate Path Preference ()
• Candidate Path name ()
• SR Policy name ()

Association Parameters Per , an SR Policy is identified through the <Headend, Color, Endpoint> tuple. The association parameters consist of:

Association Type:

Set to 6 "SR Policy Association".

Association Source (IPv4/IPv6):

Set to the headend value of the SR Policy, as defined in .

Association ID (16 bit):

Always set to the numeric value 1.

Extended Association ID TLV:

Mandatory TLV for an SRPA. Encodes the Color and Endpoint of the SR Policy ().

Extended Association ID TLV 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Color | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Endpoint ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

31 for the Extended Association ID TLV .

Length:

8 octets if IPv4 address or 20 octets if IPv6 address is encoded in the Endpoint field.

Color:

Unsigned non-zero 32-bit integer value, SR Policy color per .

Endpoint:

Can be either IPv4 (4 octets) or IPv6 address (16 octets). This value MAY be different from the one contained in the destination address field in the END-POINTS object, or in the Tunnel Endpoint Address field in the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV ().

If a PCEP speaker receives an SRPA object whose association parameters do not follow the above specification, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with:

• Error-Type = 26 "Association Error"
• Error-value = 20 "SR Policy Identifier Mismatch"

The encoding choice of the association parameters in this way is meant to guarantee that there is no possibility of a race condition when multiple PCEP speakers want to associate the same SR Policy at the same time. By adhering to this format, all PCEP speakers come up with the same association parameters independently of each other based on the SR Policy parameters . The last hop of a computed SR Policy Candidate Path MAY differ from the Endpoint contained in the <Headend, Color, Endpoint> tuple. An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the path to the Endpoint node using the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) shortest path(s). In this example, the destination of the SR Policy Candidate Paths will be some node before the Endpoint, but the Endpoint value is still used at the headend to steer traffic with that Endpoint IP address into the SR Policy. The destination of the SR Policy Candidate Path is signaled using the END-POINTS object and/or the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV, per the usual PCEP procedure. When neither the END-POINTS object nor the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV is present, the PCEP speaker MUST extract the destination from the Endpoint field in the SRPA Extended Association ID TLV. SR Policy with Color-Only steering is signaled with the Endpoint value set to unspecified, i.e., 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 or :: for IPv6, per .

Association Information The SRPA object may carry the following TLVs:

SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV ():

(optional) encodes the SR Policy Name string.

SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV ():

(mandatory) encodes the SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier.

SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV ():

(optional) encodes the SR Policy Candidate Path string name.

SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV ():

(optional) encodes the SR Policy Candidate Path Preference value.

When a mandatory TLV is missing from an SRPA object, the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with:

• Error-Type = 6 "Mandatory Object Missing"
• Error-value = 21 "Missing SR Policy Mandatory TLV"

Only one TLV instance of each TLV type can be carried in an SRPA object, and only the first occurrence is processed. Any others MUST be silently ignored.

SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV The SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV () is an optional TLV for the SRPA object. It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the name for the SR Policy is limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose to truncate long names to 255 bytes to simplify interoperability with other protocols.

SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV 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 ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

56 for the SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV.

Length:

Indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so that the TLV is 4-octet aligned. Padding is not included in the Length field.

SR Policy Name:

SR Policy name, as defined in . It MUST be a string of printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator.

SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV The SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV () is a mandatory TLV for the SRPA object.

SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Proto-Origin | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Originator ASN | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Originator Address | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Discriminator | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

57 for the SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV.

Length:

28.

Protocol-Origin:

8-bit unsigned integer value that encodes the Protocol-Origin. The values of this field are specified in the IANA registry "SR Policy Protocol Origin" under the "Segment Routing" registry group, which is introduced in . Note that in the PCInitiate message , the Protocol-Origin is always set to 10 - "PCEP (In PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE)". The "SR Policy Protocol Origin" IANA registry includes a combination of values intended for use in PCEP and BGP-LS. When the registry contains two variants of values associated with the mechanism or protocol used for provisioning of the Candidate Path, for example 1 - "PCEP" and 10 - "PCEP (In PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE)", the "(In PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE)", then variants MUST be used in PCEP.

Reserved:

This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

Originator Autonomous System Number (ASN):

Represented as a 32-bit unsigned integer value, part of the originator identifier, as specified in . When sending a PCInitiate message , the PCE is the originator of the Candidate Path. If the PCE is configured with an ASN, then it MUST set it; otherwise, the ASN is set to 0.

Originator Address:

Represented as a 128-bit value as specified in . When sending a PCInitiate message, the PCE is acting as the originator and therefore MAY set this to an address that it owns.

Discriminator:

32-bit unsigned integer value that encodes the Discriminator of the Candidate Path, as specified in . This is the field that mainly distinguishes different SR Policy Candidate Paths, coming from the same originator. It is allowed to be any number in the 32-bit range.

SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV The SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV () is an optional TLV for the SRPA object. It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the name for the SR Policy is limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose to truncate long names to 255 bytes to simplify interoperability with other protocols.

SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV 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 Candidate Path Name ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

58 for the SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV.

Length:

Indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so that the TLV is 4-octet aligned. Padding is not included in the Length field.

SR Policy Candidate Path Name:

SR Policy Candidate Path Name, as defined in . It MUST be a string of printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator.

SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV The SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV () is an optional TLV for the SRPA object. If the TLV is absent, then the default Preference value is 100, per .

SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preference | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

59 for the SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV.

Length:

4.

Preference:

32-bit unsigned integer value that encodes the Preference of the Candidate Path as defined in .

SR Policy Signaling Extensions This section introduces mechanisms described for SR Policies in to PCEP. These extensions do not make use of the SRPA for signaling in PCEP; therefore, they cannot rely on the Association capability negotiation in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV. Instead, separate capability negotiation is required. This document specifies four new TLVs to be carried in the OPEN or LSP object. Only one TLV instance of each type can be carried, and only the first occurrence is processed. Any others MUST be ignored.

SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV The SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV () is a TLV for the OPEN object. It is used at session establishment to learn the peer's capabilities with respect to SR Policy. Implementations that support SR Policy MUST include the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object if the extension is enabled. In addition, the ASSOC-Type-List TLV containing SRPA Type (6) MUST be present in the OPEN object, as specified in . If a PCEP speaker receives an SRPA but the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV is not exchanged, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 "Reception of an invalid object" and Error-value = 44 "Missing SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV" and MUST then close the PCEP session.

SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV 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 |L| |I|E|P| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

71 for the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV.

Length:

4.

Flags:

32 bits. The following flags are currently defined:

P-flag (Computation Priority):

If set to 1 by a PCEP speaker, the P-flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the handling of the COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV for the SR Policy (). If this flag is set to 0, then the receiving PCEP speaker MUST NOT send the COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV and MUST ignore it on receipt.

E-flag (Explicit NULL Label Policy):

If set to 1 by a PCEP speaker, the E-flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the handling of the EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV for the SR Policy (). If this flag is set to 0, then the receiving PCEP speaker MUST NOT send the EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV and MUST ignore it on receipt.

I-flag (Invalidation):

If set to 1 by a PCEP speaker, the I-flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the handling of the INVALIDATION TLV for the SR Policy (). If this flag is set to 0, then the receiving PCEP speaker MUST NOT send the INVALIDATION TLV and MUST ignore it on receipt.

L-flag (Stateless Operation):

If set to 1 by a PCEP speaker, the L-flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the stateless (PCReq/PCRep) operations for the SR Policy (). If the PCE set this flag to 0, then the PCC MUST NOT send PCReq messages to this PCE for the SR Policy.

Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. More flags can be assigned in the future per ().

LSP Object TLVs This section is introducing three new TLVs to be carried in the LSP object introduced in .

COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV The COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV () is an optional TLV. It is used to signal the numerical computation priority, as specified in . If the TLV is absent from the LSP object, and the P-flag in the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV is set to 1, a default Priority value of 128 is used.

COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

68 for the COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV.

Length:

4.

Priority:

8-bit unsigned integer value that encodes numerical priority with which this LSP is to be recomputed by the PCE upon topology change. The lowest value is the highest priority.

Reserved:

This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV To steer an unlabeled IP packet into an SR Policy for the MPLS data plane, it is necessary to push a label stack of one or more labels on that packet. The EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV is an optional TLV for the LSP object used to indicate whether an Explicit NULL label must be pushed on an unlabeled IP packet before any other labels. The contents of this TLV are used by the SR Policy manager as described in . If an EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV is not present, the decision of whether to push an Explicit NULL label on a given packet is a matter of local configuration. Note that Explicit NULL is currently only defined for SR-MPLS and not for SRv6. Therefore, the receiving PCEP speaker MUST ignore the presence of this TLV for SRv6 Policies.

EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ENLP | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

69 for the EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV.

Length:

4.

ENLP:

Explicit NULL Label Policy. 8-bit unsigned integer value that indicates whether Explicit NULL labels are to be pushed on unlabeled IP packets that are being steered into a given SR Policy. The values of this field are specified in the IANA registry "SR Policy ENLP Values" under the "Segment Routing" registry group, which was introduced in .

Reserved:

This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

The ENLP unassigned values may be used for future extensions, and implementations MUST ignore the EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV with unrecognized values. The behavior signaled in this TLV MAY be overridden by local configuration by the network operator based on their deployment requirements. describes the behavior on the headend for the handling of the Explicit NULL label.

INVALIDATION TLV The INVALIDATION TLV () is an optional TLV. This TLV is used to control traffic steering into an LSP when the LSP is operationally down/invalid. In the context of SR Policy, this TLV facilitates the Drop-Upon-Invalid behavior, specified in . Normally, if the LSP is down/invalid then it stops attracting traffic; traffic that would have been destined for that LSP is redirected somewhere else, such as via IGP or another LSP. The Drop-Upon-Invalid behavior specifies that the LSP keeps attracting traffic and the traffic has to be dropped at the headend. Such an LSP is said to be "in drop state". While in the drop state, the LSP operational state is "UP", as indicated by the O-flag in the LSP object. However, the ERO object MAY be empty if no valid path has been computed. The INVALIDATION TLV is used in both directions between PCEP peers:

• PCE -> PCC: The PCE specifies to the PCC whether to enable or disable Drop-Upon-Invalid (Config).
• PCC -> PCE: The PCC reports the current setting of the Drop-Upon-Invalid (Config) and also whether the LSP is currently in the drop state (Oper).

INVALIDATION TLV 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Oper | Config | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type:

70 for the INVALIDATION TLV.

Length:

4.

Oper:

An 8-bit flag field that encodes the operational state of the LSP. It MUST be set to 0 by the PCE when sending and MUST be ignored by the PCC upon receipt. See for IANA information.

Oper State of Drop-Upon-Invalid Feature 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |D| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

• D: Dropping - the LSP is actively dropping traffic as a result of Drop-Upon-Invalid behavior being activated.
• The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.

Config:

An 8-bit flag field that encodes the configuration of the LSP. See for IANA information.

Config State of Drop-Upon-Invalid Feature 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |D| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

• D: Drop enabled - the Candidate Path has Drop-Upon-Invalid feature enabled.
• The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.

Reserved:

This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

Drop-Upon-Invalid Applies to SR Policy The Drop-Upon-Invalid feature is somewhat special among the other SR Policy features in the way that it is enabled/disabled. This feature is enabled only on the whole SR Policy, not on a particular Candidate Path of that SR Policy, i.e., when any Candidate Path has Drop-Upon-Invalid enabled, it means that the whole SR Policy has the feature enabled. As stated in , an SR Policy is invalid when all its Candidate Paths are invalid. Once all the Candidate Paths of an SR Policy have become invalid, then the SR Policy checks whether any of the Candidate Paths have Drop-Upon-Invalid enabled. If so, the SR Policy enters the drop state and "activates" the highest preference Candidate Path that has the Drop-Upon-Invalid enabled. Note that only one Candidate Path needs to be reported to the PCE with the Dropping (D) flag set.

Updates to RFC 8231 allows delegation of an LSP in operationally down state, but at the same time mandates the use of PCReq before sending PCRpt. This document updates , by making that section of not applicable to SR Policy LSPs. Thus, when a PCC wants to delegate an SR Policy LSP, it MAY proceed directly to sending PCRpt, without first sending PCReq and waiting for PCRep. This has the advantage of reducing the number of PCEP messages and simplifying the implementation. Furthermore, a PCEP speaker is not required to support PCReq/PCRep at all for SR Policies. The PCEP speaker can indicate support for PCReq/PCRep via the L-flag in the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV (see ). When this flag is cleared, or when the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV is absent, the given peer MUST NOT be sent PCReq/PCRep messages for SR Policy LSPs. Conversely, when this flag is set, the peer can receive and process PCReq/PCRep messages for SR Policy LSPs. The above applies only to SR Policy LSPs and does not affect other LSP types, such as RSVP-TE LSPs. For other LSP types, continues to apply.

IANA Considerations IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry at .

Association Type This document defines a new Association Type: SR Policy Association. IANA has made the following assignment in the "ASSOCIATION Type Field" registry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:

Type	Name	Reference
6	SR Policy Association	RFC 9862

PCEP TLV Type Indicators This document defines eight new TLVs for carrying additional information about SR Policy and SR Policy Candidate Paths. IANA has made the following assignments in the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry:

Value	Description	Reference
56	SRPOLICY-POL-NAME	RFC 9862
57	SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID	RFC 9862
58	SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME	RFC 9862
59	SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE	RFC 9862
68	COMPUTATION-PRIORITY	RFC 9862
69	EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY	RFC 9862
70	INVALIDATION	RFC 9862
71	SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY	RFC 9862

PCEP Errors This document defines the following:

• one new Error-value within the "Mandatory Object Missing" Error-Type,
• one new Error-value within the "Reception of an invalid object", and
• two new Error-values within the "Association Error" Error-Type.

IANA has made the following assignments in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.

Error-Type	Meaning	Error-value	Reference
6	Mandatory Object Missing
		21: Missing SR Policy Mandatory TLV	RFC 9862
		22: Missing SR Policy Association	RFC 9862
10	Reception of an invalid object
		44: Missing SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV	RFC 9862
26	Association Error
		20: SR Policy Identifiers Mismatch	RFC 9862
		21: SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier Mismatch	RFC 9862

TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag Field A draft version of this document added a new bit in the "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag Field" registry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group, which was early allocated by IANA. IANA has marked the bit position as deprecated.

Bit	Description	Reference
1	Deprecated (Specified-BSID-only)	RFC 9862

SR Policy Invalidation Operational State IANA has created and now maintains a new registry under the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group. The new registry is called "SR Policy Invalidation Operational Flags". New values are to be assigned by "IETF Review" . Each bit will be tracked with the following qualities:

• Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
• Description
• Reference

Bit	Description	Reference
0 - 6	Unassigned
7	D: Dropping - the LSP is actively dropping traffic as a result of Drop-Upon-Invalid behavior being activated.	RFC 9862

SR Policy Invalidation Configuration State IANA has created and now maintains a new registry under the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group. The new registry is called "SR Policy Invalidation Configuration Flags". New values are to be assigned by "IETF Review" . Each bit will be tracked with the following qualities:

• Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
• Description
• Reference

Bit	Description	Reference
0 - 6	Unassigned
7	D: Drop enabled - the Candidate Path has Drop-Upon-Invalid feature enabled.	RFC 9862

SR Policy Capability TLV Flag Field IANA has created and now maintains a new registry under the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group. The new registry is called "SR Policy Capability TLV Flag Field". New values are to be assigned by "IETF Review" . Each bit will be tracked with the following qualities:

• Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
• Description
• Reference

Bit	Description	Reference
0 - 26	Unassigned	RFC 9862
27	Stateless Operation (L-flag)	RFC 9862
28	Unassigned	RFC 9862
29	Invalidation (I-flag)	RFC 9862
30	Explicit NULL Label Policy (E-flag)	RFC 9862
31	Computation Priority (P-flag)	RFC 9862

Security Considerations The information carried in the newly defined SRPA object and TLVs could provide an eavesdropper with additional information about the SR Policy. The security considerations described in , , , , , , and are applicable to this specification. As per , it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions can only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport Layer Security (TLS) as per the recommendations and best current practices in .

Manageability Considerations All manageability requirements and considerations listed in , , , , and apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.

Control of Function and Policy A PCE or PCC implementation MAY allow the capabilities specified in and the capability for support of an SRPA advertised in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be enabled and disabled.

Information and Data Models defines a YANG module with common building blocks for PCEP extensions described in of this document.

Liveness Detection and Monitoring Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already listed in , , and .

Verify Correct Operations Operation verification requirements already listed in , , , , and are applicable to mechanisms defined in this document. An implementation MUST allow the operator to view SR Policy Identifier and SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier advertised in an SRPA object. An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the capabilities defined in this document advertised by each PCEP peer. An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view LSPs associated with a specific SR Policy Identifier.

Requirements on Other Protocols The PCEP extensions defined in this document do not imply any new requirements on other protocols.

Impact on Network Operations The mechanisms defined in , , , and also apply to the PCEP extensions defined in this document.

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This document specifies the encoding to be used by an LSR in order to transmit labeled packets on Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) data links, on LAN data links, and possibly on other data links as well. This document also specifies rules and procedures for processing the various fields of the label stack encoding. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry. This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describes PCEPS -- the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure transport for PCEP. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP; therefore, they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP. This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. The extensions for stateful PCE provide active control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE. This document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. A segment can have a semantic local to an SR node or global within an SR domain. SR provides a mechanism that allows a flow to be restricted to a specific topological path, while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node(s) to the SR domain. SR can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with no change to the forwarding plane. A segment is encoded as an MPLS label. An ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack of labels. The segment to process is on the top of the stack. Upon completion of a segment, the related label is popped from the stack. SR can be applied to the IPv6 architecture, with a new type of routing header. A segment is encoded as an IPv6 address. An ordered list of segments is encoded as an ordered list of IPv6 addresses in the routing header. The active segment is indicated by the Destination Address (DA) of the packet. The next active segment is indicated by a pointer in the new routing header. A Path Computation Element (PCE) can compute Traffic Engineering (TE) paths through a network; these paths are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths are Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that are set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol. However, other TE path setup methods are possible within the PCE architecture. This document proposes an extension to the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to allow support for different path setup methods over a given PCEP session. Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by link-state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). An SR path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), an explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks. This document updates RFC 8408. This document introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the context of a Path Computation Element (PCE). This grouping can then be used to define associations between sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors), and it is equally applicable to the stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and the stateless PCE. Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source routing. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend node. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy. This document updates RFC 8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) are used to protect data exchanged over a wide range of application protocols and can also form the basis for secure transport protocols. Over the years, the industry has witnessed several serious attacks on TLS and DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used cipher suites and their modes of operation. This document provides the latest recommendations for ensuring the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS. These recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases. RFC 7525, an earlier version of the TLS recommendations, was published when the industry was transitioning to TLS 1.2. Years later, this transition is largely complete, and TLS 1.3 is widely available. This document updates the guidance given the new environment and obsoletes RFC 7525. In addition, this document updates RFCs 5288 and 6066 in view of recent attacks. Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets through a network using the IPv6 or MPLS data plane, employing the source routing paradigm. An SR Path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE). Since SR can be applied to both MPLS and IPv6 data planes, a PCE should be able to compute an SR Path for both MPLS and IPv6 data planes. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension and mechanisms to support SR-MPLS have been defined. This document outlines the necessary extensions to support SR for the IPv6 data plane within PCEP. Informative References Ciena Corporation Ciena Corporation Cisco Systems Juniper Networks, Inc. Nokia Ciena Huawei Technologies Verizon Inc. Cisco Systems. Certain traffic engineering path computation problems require solutions that consist of multiple traffic paths that together form a solution. Returning a single traffic path does not provide a valid solution. This document defines mechanisms to encode multiple paths for a single set of objectives and constraints. This allows encoding of multiple Segment Lists per Candidate Path within a Segment Routing Policy. The new Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) mechanisms are designed to be generic, where possible, to allow for future re-use outside of SR Policy. The new PCEP mechanisms are applicable to both stateless and stateful PCEP. Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow encoding of multiple Segment Lists in PCEP. Work in Progress Huawei Technologies Ciena Corporation Huawei Technologies Cisco Systems, Inc. MTN Cameroon This document augments a YANG data model for the management of Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs in support for Segment Routing in IPv6 (SRv6) and SR Policy. The data model includes configuration data and state data (status information and counters for the collection of statistics). Work in Progress This document specifies the architecture for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK] Constraint-based path computation is a fundamental building block for traffic engineering systems such as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Path computation in large, multi-domain, multi-region, or multi-layer networks is complex and may require special computational components and cooperation between the different network domains. This document specifies the architecture for a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based model to address this problem space. This document does not attempt to provide a detailed description of all the architectural components, but rather it describes a set of building blocks for the PCE architecture from which solutions may be constructed. This memo provides information for the Internet community. In many environments, a component external to a network is called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and the current state of the connections within the network, including Traffic Engineering (TE) information. This is information typically distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network. This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be collected from networks and shared with external components using the BGP routing protocol. This is achieved using a BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism applies to physical and virtual (e.g., tunnel) IGP links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control. Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs). This document obsoletes RFC 7752 by completely replacing that document. It makes some small changes and clarifications to the previous specification. This document also obsoletes RFC 9029 by incorporating the updates that it made to RFC 7752. In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and service independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID), as described in RFC 8402. It is possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) or an SR TE path. The BSID can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document specifies the concept of binding value, which can be either an MPLS label or a Segment Identifier (SID). It further specifies an extension to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for reporting the binding value by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to the Path Computation Element (PCE) to support PCE-based TE policies. A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of segments (also referred to as "instructions") that define a source-routed policy. An SR Policy consists of one or more Candidate Paths (CPs), each comprising one or more segment lists. A headend can be provisioned with these CPs using various mechanisms such as Command-Line Interface (CLI), Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), or BGP. This document specifies how BGP can be used to distribute SR Policy CPs. It introduces a BGP SAFI for advertising a CP of an SR Policy and defines sub-TLVs for the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute to signal information related to these CPs. Furthermore, this document updates RFC 9012 by extending the Color Extended Community to support additional steering modes over SR Policy. Individual Cisco Systems Huawei Technologies RtBrick Inc. Nvidia

Acknowledgements We would like to thank , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and for their reviews and suggestions.

Contributors Huawei

India dhruv.ietf@gmail.com

Huawei Technologies

Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 10095 China chengli13@huawei.com

Cisco Systems, Inc

zali@cisco.com

Cisco Systems, Inc.

2000 Innovation Dr. Kanata Ontario Canada rmelarco@cisco.com

Authors' Addresses Ciena Corporation

385 Terry Fox Dr. Kanata Ontario K2K 0L1 Canada mkoldych@proton.me

Ciena Corporation

385 Terry Fox Dr. Kanata Ontario K2K 0L1 Canada ssivabal@ciena.com

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Eurovea Central 3. Bratislava 811 09 Slovakia ssidor@cisco.com

Juniper Networks, Inc.

cbarth@juniper.net

Huawei Technologies

Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China pengshuping@huawei.com

Nokia

hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com