Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization
draft-all-pce-srv6-policy-sid-list-optimization-03
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zafar Ali , Changwang Lin , Yisong Liu , Ran Chen , Cheng Li | ||
| Last updated | 2025-11-05 | ||
| Replaces | draft-ali-pce-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-all-pce-srv6-policy-sid-list-optimization-03
PCE Working Group Z. Ali
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track C. Lin
Expires: 10 May 2026 New H3C Technologies
Y. Liu
China Mobile
R. Chen
ZTE Corporation
C. Li
Huawei Technologies
6 November 2025
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for
SRv6 Policy SID List Optimization
draft-all-pce-srv6-policy-sid-list-optimization-03
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 PCEP extension to
indicate whether the endpoint's node SID needs to be included or
excluded when installing the 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/.
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List November 2025
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 10 May 2026.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Overview of PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. New TLV in the SRPA Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. A New flag in the SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV . . . . . . 5
4.3. New flag in SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. MSD Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Backward compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List November 2025
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). [RFC9603] specifies PCEP
extensions to support SR for the IPv6 data plane.
A PCE computes the SRv6 TE Policy SID list from the headend to the
endpoint. As described in [I-D.draft-ali-spring-srv6-policy-sid-
list-optimization], the computed 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 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.draft-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 PCEP
extension to include or exclude the node SID when installing the SRv6
Policy.
The procedure specified in this draft are equally applicable to PCE
initiated LSPs as well as PCC inited LSPs.
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List November 2025
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
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
PCE, PCEP, PCEP Peer.
SR: Segment Routing.
SID: Segment Identifier.
SRv6: Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane.
4. Overview of PCEP Extensions
4.1. New TLV in the SRPA Object
The draft specifies a new SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV for the SR
Policy Association object defined in [RFC9862]. The SRPOLICY-POL-
ATTRIBUTE TLV is optional.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV
* Type: TBD1 for "SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE" TLV.
* Length: 4.
* Flags: The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero
upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List November 2025
4.2. A New flag in the SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV
This document specifies IFN-flag (Install Final Node-sid) bit in the
Flags field of "SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE" TLV specified in this
document. The flag is applicable only to SR policies with SRv6 data
plane. The flag MUST be ignored for SR policies with SR-MPLS data
plane.
IFN (Install Final Node-sid) - 1 bit (Bit Position TBD2):
* If set to 1, the endpoint node SID MUST be installed when
installing the SRv6 Policy SID list(s) used to carry the data
traffic.
* If set to 0, the endpoint node SID MUST NOT be installed when
installing the SRv6 Policy SID list(s) used to carry the data
traffic.
4.3. New flag in SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
IFN (Install Final Node-sid capability flag) is proposed in the SRv6-
PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV defined in [RFC9603]. The bit position for
the flag in the SRv6 Capability Flag Field registry is to be defined
by IANA.
IFN (Install Final Node-sid flag) - 1 bit (Bit Position TBD3):
* If set to 1, it indicates support for the IFN-flag in the
SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV.
5. Operation
A PCE always computes the SRv6 TE Policy SID list from the headend to
the endpoint (node SID).
A PCEP speaker indicates its ability to support IFN-flag in the Flags
field of the SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV during the PCEP
initialization phase by setting the IFN-flag in the SRv6-PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV in the Open message.
A PCEP peer indicates the inclusion or exclusion of the endpoint's
Node SID in IFN-flag in the Flags field of the SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE
TLV.
A PCEP peer MUST NOT set the IFN-flag flag if capability was not
advertised by both peers.
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List November 2025
If the computed SID list ends with the policy endpoint's Node SID and
the traffic steered over policy already ensures that the traffic is
taken to the policy endpoint and the PCEP peers are capable of
supporting the IFN-flag, the PCE MUST set IFN-flag to 0.
If the computed SID list ends with the policy endpoint's Node SID and
the traffic steered over policy does not takes the traffic to the
policy endpoint and the PCEP peers are capable of supporting the IFN-
flag, the PCE MUST set IFN-flag to 1.
If the computed SID list ends with the penultimate hop adjacency SID,
and the PCEP peers are capable of supporting the IFN-flag, the PCE
MUST set IFN-flag to 1.
If the PCEP peers are capable of supporting the IFN-flag and the IFN-
flag in the Flags field of the SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV is set, the
PCC MUST install the endpoint node SID when installing the SRv6
Policy sid list(s) used to carry data traffic.
If the PCEP peers are capable of supporting the IFN-flag and the IFN-
flag in the Flags field of the SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV is not set,
the PCC MUST NOT install the endpoint node SID when installing the
SRv6 Policy sid list(s) used to carry data traffic.
IFN-flag value in the Flags field of the SRPOLICY-POL-ATTRIBUTE TLV
MUST NOT change for a given SRv6 Policy Candidate Path during its
lifetime.
Local policy at PCC MAY override the IFN-flag.
PCE ignores the IFN-flag received from the PCC when computing the
path and computes the SRv6 Policy SID list from the headend to the
endpoint. PCE MAY use the IFN-flag value for debugging purposes.
5.1. MSD Consideration
In some cases, the SID list computed by the PCE exceeds the Maximum
Stack Depth (MSD) that the headend node is capable of supporting. In
such cases, the PCE has to install transit policies to reduce the
sid-list to fit within the MSD capability of the headend node. As
the SRv6 policy endpoint node suppression reduces the sid-list size,
the section describes the MSD consideration related to this draft.
Suppose the size of the SRv6 TE Policy SID list computed by PCE is L.
If the PCEP peers are capable of supporting the IFN-flag, and the PCE
sets the IFN-flag to 1, the PCE uses the full sid-list length (L) in
the headend MSD consideration procedure. If the PCEP peers are
capable of supporting the IFN-flag and the PCE sets the IFN-flag to
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List November 2025
0, the PCE uses the sid-list length (L-1) in the headend MSD
consideration procedure. This is because the endpoint node SID is
not installed in forwarding. The MSD consideration procedure is
outside the scope of this document.
6. Backward compatibility
If at least one PCEP peer is not capable of supporting the IFN-flag,
the endpoint Node SID inclusion/exclusion SHOULD be set based on
local policy at the PCC.
7. Security Considerations
[RFC8754] defines the notion of an SR domain and use of SRH within
the SR domain. Procedures for securing an SR domain are defined the
section 5.1 and section 7 of [RFC8754]. This document does not
impose any additional security challenges to be considered beyond
security threats described in [RFC8754], [RFC8679] and [RFC8986].
8. IANA Considerations
TBA
9. 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
Samuel Sidor
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: ssidor@cisco.com
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List November 2025
[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>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[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>.
[RFC8679] Shen, Y., Jeganathan, M., Decraene, B., Gredler, H.,
Michel, C., and H. Chen, "MPLS Egress Protection
Framework", RFC 8679, DOI 10.17487/RFC8679, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8679>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9603] Li, C., Ed., Kaladharan, P., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
and Y. Zhu, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for IPv6 Segment Routing",
RFC 9603, DOI 10.17487/RFC9603, July 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9603>.
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP extensions for SRv6 Policy SID List November 2025
[RFC9862] Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Sidor, S., Barth, C., Peng,
S., and H. Bidgoli, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment
Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths", RFC 9862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9862, October 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9862>.
10.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ketan Talaulikar and Andrew Stone for
the review comments.
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
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: c.l@huawei.com
Ali, et al. Expires 10 May 2026 [Page 9]