Skip to main content

SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advertisement
draft-ali-idr-srv6-policy-sl-opt-distribution-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Zafar Ali , Changwang Lin , Yisong Liu , Ran Chen
Last updated 2026-03-02
Replaces draft-ali-idr-srv6-policy-sid-list-optimization
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ali-idr-srv6-policy-sl-opt-distribution-02
IDR Working Group                                                 Z. Ali
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                  C. Lin
Expires: 3 September 2026                           New H3C Technologies
                                                                  Y. Liu
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                 R. Chen
                                                         ZTE Corporation
                                                            2 March 2026

            SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advertisement
            draft-ali-idr-srv6-policy-sl-opt-distribution-02

Abstract

   In some use cases, an SRv6 policy's SID list ends with the policy
   endpoint's node SID, and the traffic steered (over policy) already
   ensures that it is taken to the policy endpoint.  In such cases, the
   SID list can be optimized by excluding the endpoint Node SID when
   installing the policy.  This draft specifies a BGP-LS extension to
   indicate whether the endpoint's node SID is included or excluded in
   installing SID list(s) of the Candidate Path (CP) of an SRv6 policy.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 September 2025.

Ali, et al.             Expires 3 September 2025                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert      March 2025

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Overview of BGP Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] allows a node to steer a packet flow
   along any path.  A Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy) [RFC8402] is an
   ordered list of segments that represent a source-routed policy.  The
   headend node is said to steer a flow into an SR Policy.  The packets
   steered into an SR Policy have an ordered list of segments associated
   with that SR Policy written into them.  Segment Routing Policy
   Architecture [RFC9256] updates [RFC8402] as it details the concepts
   of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.  [RFC8986] describes the
   representation and processing of this ordered list of segments for
   Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6).  [I.D.draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-
   policy] defines a mechanism to collect the Segment Routing Policy
   information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into
   BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) updates.

   The SRv6 policy SID list may end with the policy endpoint's Node SID
   or the penultimate hop adjacency SID.  If the computed SID list ends
   with the policy endpoint's node SID and the overlay SID in the

Ali, et al.             Expires 3 September 2025                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft  SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert      March 2025

   steered traffic (over policy) already ensures that the traffic is
   taken to the policy endpoint with the same intent, the SRv6 policy
   endpoint device needs to process back-to-back local node SIDs.
   Examples of overlay SID containing the local node SID are a service
   SID, a binding SID for transit policies, an EPE SID, etc.  From a
   compression efficiency viewpoint, carrying back-to-back end-point
   node SID is inefficient.  The SID list in the packet can be optimized
   by excluding the end-point node SID when installing the policy.  End-
   point node SID exclusion improves the compression efficiency and
   makes packet processing more efficient for the policy endpoint.

   Excluding the policy endpoint's node SID is possible in most use
   cases, but not all.  For example, if the SRv6 policy is used to carry
   MPLS traffic, as described in [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-mpls-
   interworking], it is not possible to exclude the policy endpoint's
   node SID.  Specifically, the endpoint's node SID inclusion or
   exclusion is a policy attribute.

   This draft specifies a BGP-LS extension to indicate whether the
   endpoint's node SID is included or excluded in installing SID list(s)
   of the Candidate Path (CP) of an SRv6 policy.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Terminology

   Headend node: Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node
   where it is instantiated called a headend node [RFC9256].

   SR: Segment Routing.

   SID: Segment Identifier.

   SRv6: Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane.

Ali, et al.             Expires 3 September 2025                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft  SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert      March 2025

4.  Overview of BGP Extensions

   IFN-flag (Install Final Node-sid) in the SR Candidate Path State TLV
   specified in [I-D- draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy] is proposed to
   indicate whether the endpoint node SID is included or excluded in
   installing SID list(s) of the Candidate Path (CP).  The flag is
   applicable only to SR policies with SRv6 data plane.  The flag MUST
   NOT be set and MUST be ignored for SR policies with SR-MPLS data
   plane.

   IFN (Install Final Node-sid) - 1 bit (Bit Position TBD1):

   *  If set to 1 indictaes the endpoint node SID is installed when
      installing the SRv6 Policy SID list(s) used to carry the data
      traffic.

   *  If set to 0 indictaes the endpoint node SID is excluded when
      installing the SRv6 Policy SID list(s) used to carry the data
      traffic.

5.  Security Considerations

   TBA

6.  IANA Considerations

   TBA

7.  Contributors

   The following people have contributed to this document:

      Rajesh M Venkateswaran
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      Email: rmelarco@cisco.com

      Yuanxiang Qiu
      New H3C Technologies
      Email: qiuyuanxiang@h3c.com

      Cheng Li
      Huawei Technologies
      Email: c.l@huawei.com

8.  References

Ali, et al.             Expires 3 September 2025                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft  SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert      March 2025

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

   [RFC8986]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
              D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
              (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.

   [RFC9012]  Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
              "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.

   [RFC9256]  Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
              A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
              RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]
              Agrawal, S., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Dawra, G., Li, Z.,
              and S. Hegde, "SRv6 and MPLS interworking", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-mpls-
              interworking-02, 7 February 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
              srv6-mpls-interworking-02>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Ketan Talaulikar for the review
   comments.

Ali, et al.             Expires 3 September 2025                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft  SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization Advert      March 2025

Authors' Addresses

   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Email: zali@cisco.com

   Changwang Lin
   New H3C Technologies
   Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com

   Yisong Liu
   China Mobile
   Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com

   Ran Chen
   ZTE Corporation
   Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn

Ali, et al.             Expires 3 September 2025                [Page 6]