<?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-07" 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 year="2022" month="November" day="14"/>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<t>Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for ideas and discussion.</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' initials='C.' surname='Filsfils'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Ketan Talaulikar' initials='K.' surname='Talaulikar'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Daniel Voyer' initials='D.' surname='Voyer'>
         <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Alex Bogdanov' initials='A.' surname='Bogdanov'>
         <organization>British Telecom</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Paul Mattes' initials='P.' surname='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 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.
	 </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' initials='M.' surname='Koldychev'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Siva Sivabalan' initials='S.' surname='Sivabalan'>
         <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Colby Barth' initials='C.' surname='Barth'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng' initials='S.' surname='Peng'>
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Hooman Bidgoli' initials='H.' surname='Bidgoli'>
         <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='24' month='October' year='2022'/>
      <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-08'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-08.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' initials='M.' surname='Koldychev'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Siva Sivabalan' initials='S.' surname='Sivabalan'>
         <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng' initials='S.' surname='Peng'>
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Diego Achaval' initials='D.' surname='Achaval'>
         <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Hari Kotni' initials='H.' surname='Kotni'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='4' month='July' year='2022'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document updates, simplifies and clarifies certain aspects of
   the PCEP protocol.  The content of this document has been compiled
   based on several interop exercises.


	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-koldychev-pce-operational-06'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-koldychev-pce-operational-06.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' initials='C.' surname='Schmutzer'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Clarence Filsfils' initials='C.' surname='Filsfils'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Zafar Ali' initials='Z.' surname='Ali'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Francois Clad' initials='F.' surname='Clad'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Praveen Maheshwari' initials='P.' surname='Maheshwari'>
         <organization>Airtel India</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Reza Rokui' initials='R.' surname='Rokui'>
         <organization>Ciena</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Andrew Stone' initials='A.' surname='Stone'>
         <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Luay Jalil' initials='L.' surname='Jalil'>
         <organization>Verizon</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng' initials='S.' surname='Peng'>
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Tarek Saad' initials='T.' surname='Saad'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Daniel Voyer' initials='D.' surname='Voyer'>
         <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='5' month='May' year='2022'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used
   to satisfy the requirements for strict bandwidth guarantees, end-to-
   end recovery and persistent paths within a segment routing network.
   SR policies satisfying these requirements are called &quot;circuit-style&quot;
   SR policies (CS-SR policies).

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy-02'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy-02.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' initials='B.' surname='Rajagopalan'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Vishnu Pavan Beeram' initials='V. P.' surname='Beeram'>
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shaofu Peng' initials='S.' surname='Peng'>
         <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Quan Xiong' initials='Q.' surname='Xiong'>
         <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Mike Koldychev' initials='M.' surname='Koldychev'>
         <organization>Cisco Systems Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Gyan Mishra' initials='G. S.' surname='Mishra'>
         <organization>Verizon Communications Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='6' month='July' year='2022'/>
      <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-02'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color-02.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>

