<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.4.7 -->

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

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

<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05" category="std">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP Extensions for Multipath">PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information</title>

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

    <date month="March" year="2022" />

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

    <abstract>


<t>Path computation algorithms are not limited to return a single optimal path.
Multiple paths may exist that satisfy the given objectives and constraints.
This document defines a mechanism to encode multiple paths for a single set of
objectives and constraints.
This is a generic PCEP mechanism, not specific to
any path setup type or dataplane.
The mechanism is applicable to both stateless and stateful PCEP.</t>



    </abstract>


  </front>

  <middle>


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

<t>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)
<xref target="RFC5440"/> enables the communication between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between two PCEs based on
the PCE architecture <xref target="RFC4655"/>.</t>

<t>PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model <xref target="RFC8231"/> describes a set
of extensions to PCEP that enable active control of Multiprotocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
tunnels.  <xref target="RFC8281"/> describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated
LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need for local
configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for dynamic centralized
control of a network.</t>

<t>PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing <xref target="RFC8664"/>
specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic Engineering
(TE) paths, as well as for a PCC to request a path subject to certain
constraint(s) and optimization criteria in SR networks.</t>

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

<t>This document defines the required extensions that allow the signaling
of multipath information via PCEP.</t>

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

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

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

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

<t>PCEP Tunnel:</t>

<t><list style='empty'>
  <t>The object identified by the PLSP-ID, see <xref target="I-D.koldychev-pce-operational"/> for more details.</t>
</list></t>

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

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

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

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

<t>With the help of the protocol extensions defined in this document,
this limitation is overcome.</t>

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

<t>A PCC may request a path with 80 Gbps of bandwidth, but all links in the
network have only 50 Gbps capacity.  The PCE can return two paths, that can
together carry 80 Gbps. The PCC can then equally or unequally split the incoming
80 Gbps of traffic among the two paths. <xref target="WEIGHT-TLV"/> introduces a
new TLV that carries the path weight that allows for distribution of incoming
traffic on to the multiple paths.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="providing-backup-path-for-protection" title="Providing Backup path for Protection">

<t>It is desirable for the PCE to compute and signal to the PCC a backup path
that is used to protect a primary path within the multipaths in a given LSP.</t>

<t>Note that <xref target="RFC8745"/> specify the Path Protection association among LSPs. The use of <xref target="RFC8745"/> with multipath is out of scope of this document and is for future study.</t>

<t>When multipath is used, a backup path may protect one or more primary
paths.  For this reason, primary and backup path identifiers are needed to
indicate which backup path(s) protect which primary path(s).
<xref target="BACKUP-TLV"/> introduces a new TLV that carries the required information.</t>

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

<t>Certain applications, such as Circuit Style SR Policy <xref target="I-D.schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy"/>,
require the head-end to know both forward and reverse paths for each of the
segment lists of an SR Policy in order to run OAM/PM/BFD protocols on each
Segment List as a separate circuit.</t>

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

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

<t>We define the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV that MAY be present in the OPEN
object and/or the LSP object.  The purpose of this TLV is two-fold:</t>

<t><list style="numbers">
  <t>From PCC: it tells how many multipaths per PCEP Tunnel, the PCC can install in
forwarding.</t>
  <t>From PCE: it tells that the PCE supports this standard and how
many multipaths per PCEP Tunnel, the PCE can compute.</t>
</list></t>

<t>Only the first instance of this TLV can be processed, subsequent
instances SHOULD be ignored.</t>

<t><xref target="OP"/> specify the usage of this TLV with Open message (within the OPEN object) and other PCEP messages (within the LSP object).</t>

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

<t>Type: TBD1 for “MULTIPATH-CAP” TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>Number of Multipaths: the maximum number of multipaths per PCEP 
Tunnel. The value 0 indicates unlimited number.</t>

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

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

<t>O-flag: whether MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH-TLV is supported.</t>

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

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

<t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Class value is TBD2.</t>

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

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

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

<t>R (Reverse): Indicates this path is reverse,
i.e., it
originates on the Tunnel destination and terminates on the
Tunnel source (usually the PCC headend itself).
Paths with this flag set MUST NOT
be installed into forwarding, they serve only informational
purposes.</t>

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

<t>TLVs that may be included in the PATH-ATTRIB object are described in the
following sections.  Other optional TLVs could be defined by future
documents to be included within the PATH-ATTRIB object body.</t>

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

<t>We define the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV that MAY be present in the
PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>

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

<t>Type: TBD3 for “MULTIPATH-WEIGHT” TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

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

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

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

<t>This document introduces a new MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV that MAY
be present in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>

<t>This TLV is used to indicate the presence of a backup path that is
used for protection in case of failure of the primary path. The format of
the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is:</t>

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

]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Type: TBD4 for “MULTIPATH-BACKUP” TLV</t>

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

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

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

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

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

<t>This document introduces a new MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV that MAY
be present in the PATH-ATTRIB object.
This TLV encodes a many-to-many mapping between forward and reverse
paths within a PCEP Tunnel.</t>

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

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

]]></artwork></figure>

<t>Type: TBD9 for “MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH” TLV</t>

<t>Length: 16.</t>

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

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

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

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

<t>Whenever path A references another path B as being the
opposite-direction path, then path B typically also reference path A as its
own opposite-direction path.</t>

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

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

<t>SR Policy Architecture <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy"/> defines the concept of a
Composite Candidate Path. Unlike a Non-Composite Candidate Path, which contains
Segment Lists, the Composite Candidate Path contains
Colors of other policies. The traffic that is steered into a Composite Candidate Path is
split among the policies that are identified by the Colors contained in
the Composite Candidate Path. The split can be either ECMP or UCMP by adjusting the
weight of each color in the Composite Candidate Path,
in the same manner as the weight of each
Segment List in the Non-Composite Candidate Path is adjusted.</t>

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

<t>An empty ERO object MUST be included as per the existing RBNF, i.e.,
ERO MUST contain no sub-objects.
If the head-end receives a non-empty ERO,
then it MUST send PCError message with Error-Type 19 (“Invalid Operation”) and
Error-Value = TBD8 (“Non-empty path”).</t>

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

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

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

<t>When the PCC wants to indicate to the PCE that it wants to get
multipaths for a PCEP Tunnel, instead of a single path, it can do
either (1) or both (1) and (2) of the following:</t>

<t>(1) Send the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the OPEN object during session
       establishment.  This applies to all PCEP Tunnels on the PCC,
       unless overridden by PCEP Tunnel specific information.</t>

<t>(2) Additionally send the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the LSP object for a particular
       PCEP Tunnel in the PCRpt or PCReq message.  This applies to the specified
       PCEP Tunnel and overrides the information from the OPEN object.</t>

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

<t>If the PCE supports this standard, then it MUST include the
MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the OPEN object.  This tells the PCC that it can
report multiple ERO/RRO objects per PCEP Tunnel to this PCE.  If the PCE does not include
the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the OPEN object, then the PCC MUST assume
that the PCE does not support this standard and fall back to
reporting only a single ERO/RRO.</t>

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

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

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

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

<t>If a PCEP speaker detects that there are two Paths with the same Path ID,
then the PCEP speaker SHOULD send PCError message with
Error-Type = 1 (“Reception of an invalid object”) and
Error-Value = TBD5 (“Conflicting Path ID”).</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<t>Note that a given PCC may not support certain backup combinations,
such as a backup path that is itself protected by another backup path, etc.
If a PCC is not able to implement a requested backup scenario,
the PCC SHOULD send a PCError message with
Error-Type = 19 (“Invalid Operation”) and
Error-Value = TBD7 (“Not supported path backup”).</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<t>Consider the following sample SR Policy, taken from<vspace />
<xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy"/>.</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<t>Note that the syntax</t>

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

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

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

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

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

<t>Note that the syntax</t>

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

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

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

<t>Consider the following Composite Candidate Path, taken from<vspace />
<xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy"/>.</t>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | Object-Class | Name        | Object-Type       | Reference       |
 | Value        |             | Value             |                 |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD2         | PATH-ATTRIB | 1                 | This document   |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

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

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TLV Type   | TLV Name                          | Reference       |
 | Value      |                                   |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD1       | MULTIPATH-CAP                     | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD3       | MULTIPATH-WEIGHT                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD4       | MULTIPATH-BACKUP                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD9       | MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH             | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

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

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Error-Type | Error-Value                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 10         | TBD5 - Conflicting Path ID        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | TBD7 - Not supported path backup  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | TBD8 - Non-empty path             | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork></figure>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<t>Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for ideas and discussion.</t>

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

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   Andrew Stone
   Nokia

   Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com
]]></artwork></figure>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title='Normative References'>





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



<reference anchor='RFC5440' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440'>
<front>
<title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
<author fullname='JP. Vasseur' initials='JP.' role='editor' surname='Vasseur'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='JL. Le Roux' initials='JL.' role='editor' surname='Le Roux'><organization/></author>
<date month='March' year='2009'/>
<abstract><t>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]</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5440'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC5440'/>
</reference>



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



<reference anchor='RFC8281' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281'>
<front>
<title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model</title>
<author fullname='E. Crabbe' initials='E.' surname='Crabbe'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='I. Minei' initials='I.' surname='Minei'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='S. Sivabalan' initials='S.' surname='Sivabalan'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='R. Varga' initials='R.' surname='Varga'><organization/></author>
<date month='December' year='2017'/>
<abstract><t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t><t>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.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8281'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8281'/>
</reference>



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


<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy'>
   <front>
      <title>Segment Routing Policy Architecture</title>
      <author fullname='Clarence Filsfils'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Ketan Talaulikar'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Daniel Voyer'>
	 <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Alex Bogdanov'>
	 <organization>British Telecom</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Paul Mattes'>
	 <organization>Microsoft</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='22' month='March' year='2022'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any
   path.  Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source
   routing.  SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e.,
   instructions) that represent a source-routed policy.  Packet flows
   are steered into a 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 RFC8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy
   and steering into an SR Policy.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22.txt' type='TXT'/>
</reference>


<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp'>
   <front>
      <title>PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths</title>
      <author fullname='Mike Koldychev'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Siva Sivabalan'>
	 <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Colby Barth'>
	 <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng'>
	 <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Hooman Bidgoli'>
	 <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='22' month='October' year='2021'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document introduces a mechanism to specify a Segment Routing
   (SR) policy, as a collection of SR candidate paths.  An SR policy is
   identified by &lt;headend, color, endpoint&gt; tuple.  An SR policy can
   contain one or more candidate paths where each candidate path is
   identified in PCEP by its uniquely assigned PLSP-ID.  This document
   proposes extension to PCEP to support association among candidate
   paths of a given SR policy.  The mechanism proposed in this document
   is applicable to both MPLS and IPv6 data planes of SR.


	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.txt' type='TXT'/>
</reference>



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


<reference anchor='I-D.koldychev-pce-operational'>
   <front>
      <title>PCEP Operational Clarification</title>
      <author fullname='Mike Koldychev'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Siva Sivabalan'>
	 <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng'>
	 <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Diego Achaval'>
	 <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Hari Kotni'>
	 <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='19' month='February' year='2022'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document proposes some important simplifications to the original
   PCEP protocol and also serves to clarify certain aspects of PCEP
   operation.  The content of this document has been compiled based on
   the feedback from several multi-vendor interop exercises.  Several
   constructs are introduced, such as the LSP-DB and the ASSO-DB.


	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-koldychev-pce-operational-05'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-koldychev-pce-operational-05.txt' type='TXT'/>
</reference>


<reference anchor='I-D.schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy'>
   <front>
      <title>Circuit Style Segment Routing Policies</title>
      <author fullname='Christian Schmutzer'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Clarence Filsfils'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Zafar Ali'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Francois Clad'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Praveen Maheshwari'>
	 <organization>Airtel India</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='7' month='March' year='2022'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used
   to satisfy the requirements for strict bandwidth guarantees, end-to-
   end recovery and persistent paths within a segment routing network.
   SR policies satisfying these requirements are called &quot;circuit-style&quot;
   SR policies (CS-SR policies).

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy-01'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy-01.txt' type='TXT'/>
</reference>


<reference anchor='I-D.draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color'>
   <front>
      <title>Path Computation Element Protocol(PCEP) Extension for Color</title>
      <author fullname='Balaji Rajagopalan'>
	 <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Vishnu Pavan Beeram'>
	 <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shaofu Peng'>
	 <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Quan Xiong'>
	 <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Mike Koldychev'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Gyan Mishra'>
	 <organization>Verizon Communications Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='14' month='November' year='2021'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a
   Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective
   (e.g. low latency).  This document specifies an extension to Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.


	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color-01'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color-01.txt' type='TXT'/>
</reference>



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




    </references>

    <references title='Informative References'>





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



<reference anchor='RFC4655' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655'>
<front>
<title>A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture</title>
<author fullname='A. Farrel' initials='A.' surname='Farrel'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='J.-P. Vasseur' initials='J.-P.' surname='Vasseur'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='J. Ash' initials='J.' surname='Ash'><organization/></author>
<date month='August' year='2006'/>
<abstract><t>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.</t><t>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.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4655'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC4655'/>
</reference>



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




    </references>



  </back>

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

</rfc>

