Multipath Traffic Engineering for Segment Routing
draft-stone-spring-mpte-sr-02
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.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew Stone , Vishnu Pavan Beeram , Nick Buraglio , Shaofu Peng | ||
| Last updated | 2026-06-02 (Latest revision 2025-10-20) | ||
| RFC stream | (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-stone-spring-mpte-sr-02
Source Packet Routing in Networking A. Stone
Internet-Draft Nokia
Intended status: Informational V. P. Beeram
Expires: 4 December 2026 Juniper Networks
N. Buraglio
Energy Sciences Network
S. Peng
ZTE Corporation
2 June 2026
Multipath Traffic Engineering for Segment Routing
draft-stone-spring-mpte-sr-02
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to achieve Multipath Traffic
Engineering for Segment Routing based networks.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Source Packet Routing
in Networking Working Group mailing list (spring@ietf.org), which is
archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/astone282/draft-stone-spring-mpte-sr.
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 4 December 2026.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. MPTE vs multiple SID lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. MPTE concepts with Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. MPTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Junction Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Tunnel with multiple ingress/egress . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Load-balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6. Directly connected Junction nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Local optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Global optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy . . 13
7.2. Information and Data Models, e.g., MIB modules . . . . . 14
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.2. DAG Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
Appendix A. DAG Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix B. Local Optimization Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix C. Global Optimization Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction
[I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte] introduces a multipath traffic
engineering concept that combines the benefits of both Equal-Cost
Multipath (ECMP) forwarding and traffic-engineered paths. This
approach uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) based forwarding
mechanism, with the DAG signaled to participating network nodes. The
concept is to move beyond simple ECMP paths by incorporating both
ECMP and non-ECMP paths while still adhering to traffic engineering
constraints, to provide added resiliency while also permitting better
usage of link bandwidth.
This document discusses a centralized computation and signaling
mechanism for SR-based networks.
This document does not propose new extensions to the Segment Routing
protocol constructs.
The document assumes the reader is familiar with [RFC8402],
[RFC9256], and [I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte].
1.1. 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.
The BCP 14 keywords used in this document describe the expected
behavior of the centralized controller and the Junction nodes when
realizing an MPTE DAG using SR Policy and Binding SIDs. They are not
intended to introduce new requirements on the underlying SR Policy,
PCEP, BGP, BGP-LS, or NETCONF protocols themselves.
2. Terminology
* For MPTE terminology such as MPTED, DAG, MC, MID, Junction node
and others see [I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte].
* For SR terminology see [RFC8402] and [RFC9256].
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
3. MPTE vs multiple SID lists
It's worth recognizing the SR Policy information model supports
encoding multiple paths on a tunnel at the ingress, by using multiple
SID lists within a Candidate Path. A Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)
can therefore be expressed as a collection of paths, each programmed
as a separate ingress SID list. However, this ingress only encoding
has trade offs such as the number of paths can grow significantly
with graph size, weighted flow hashing is performed only at the
ingress (not at each downstream node), and the maximum segment depth
(MSD) constrains long paths that deviate from the shortest path.
Encoding the DAG's forwarding instructions across the participating
Junction nodes reduces the number of ingress SID lists and allows
per-node weight tuning, at the cost of additional state in the
network. The choice between ingress-only segment lists and the MPTE
DAG based mechanism depends on the traffic engineering requirements,
network design, link/path metrics, and the DAG structure.
4. MPTE concepts with Segment Routing
This document proposes the below concepts for applying MPTE in an SR
environment.
4.1. MPTED
The MPTED is managed by a centralized controller, such as a Path
Computation Element (PCE) acting as the MC. Topology discovery is
performed using BGP-LS [RFC9552], while transport control plane
signaling is achieved through controller-oriented protocols such as
Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440], [RFC8231] and
BGP/BGP-LS [I-D.draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy],
[I-D.draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]. The MC computes, manages, and
distributes all forwarding information to the nodes participating in
the MPTE DAG, which form the MPTED.
[I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte] specifies that a node in the MPTED is
identified by its IPv6 loopback address. However, this document
allows the use of a 32-bit dotted quad router ID as an alternative to
support IPv4 or dual stack networks. This value represents the
headend address of a node participating in the DAG.
As per [I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte], the controller acting as the
MC is responsible for assigning the MID and incrementing the MPTED
unique ID version.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
4.2. Junction Segment
The concept of a Junction Segment is introduced to describe the
signaling and forwarding behavior of a Junction node in an SR
network:
A junction segment is:
* realized using SR Policy construct with a single Candidate Path, a
Binding SID [RFC9256] and one or more segment lists to one or more
downstream nodes.
* similar to a Replication Segment [RFC9524], but performs
forwarding based on load balancing rather than replication.
* installed on nodes identified as Junction Nodes, as defined in
[I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte].
* combined with one or more Junction segments across a segment
routed topology domain to form an MPTE DAG tunnel.
Since a Junction Segment may egress to multiple downstream nodes, the
endpoint of the corresponding SR Policy can be set to the null value
(0.0.0.0 for IPv4, :: for IPv6). Therefore, a Junction segment is
identified by its <headend, color> attribute.
The color value is mapped to the <MID, Version> tuple and is tracked
by the controller.
It is RECOMMENDED that a globally consistent color value be used
across all Junction Segments that belong to a single DAG instance or
that serve a common DAG intent.
The MPTE tunnel is used by one or many SR Policies instantiated on
one or many ingress nodes.
A Junction Segment may be used by multiple ingress SR Policies,
provided that the subgraph it forwards over is fully shared by all SR
Policies using it, including the set of their respective egress
nodes.
The ingress SR Policy is responsible for initiating traffic steering
into the DAG and is associated with a color value representing
service intent. The junction segment, on the other hand, is a DAG
forwarding construct implemented as an SR Policy with a BSID.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
To support global optimization with make-before-break (MBB)
operations across a set of ingress SR Policies, the color value used
by Junction Segments SHOULD differ from the color values of the
ingress SR Policies that are consumers of the DAG. This distinction
allows ingress SR Policies to independently manage service steering
while enabling consistent forwarding behavior across the DAG.
The controller is responsible for maintaining and tracking the
association and semantic meaning of color values across all Junction
Segments that participate in the DAG.
Accordingly, an implementation SHOULD treat ingress SR Policies and
Junction Segments as decoupled constructs, each with their own
versioning and lifecycle.
Since SR-based networks support specifying multiple egress interfaces
using adjacency-SID sets and Node SIDs, the Junction Segment MAY
include a SID list entry that identifies multiple outgoing
interfaces. In addition to egress interfaces,
[I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte] describes signaling ingress
interfaces. The use of a Junction Segment omits the need for per-
interface ingress signaling as a single Binding Segment attached to
an SR Policy is used. All upstream originated traffic sent to a
downstream Junction Node uses the same, single Junction Segment value
which is a Binding Segment.
5. Operation
5.1. General
A path computation request or tunnel delegation notification is sent
to the controller, specifying one or more ingress and egress nodes,
along with constraints or service level agreement policy information.
This request may originate from an ingress router in the network or
be provisioned directly via an API to the controller. This tunnel
computation request or delegation pertains to an instance of an MPTE
Tunnel achieved with the ingress SR Policy.
The controller computes the DAG for ingress and all egress endpoints
to determine all Junction nodes in the DAG to be used for the tunnel.
The controller signals the Junction Segment(s) to all downstream
nodes, starting with the penultimate egress hop node(s) and working
upwards toward the ingress nodes. The controller may perform
deployments in parallel provided there is no interdependency of
values between junction segments, and the controller does not update
the ingress until all deployments are deemed successful.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
If a Junction Segment cannot be deployed to a node, the controller
SHOULD re-attempt the deployment up to a configurably defined maximum
number of retries.
Depending on local policy and implementation constraints, the
controller MAY execute a full rollback of the configuration, or it
MAY allow the partial deployment to proceed, provided that the TE
constraints continue to be satisfied.
Junction Segments are deployed as a unicast SR Policy with a single
Candidate Path using protocols such as PCEP, BGP, or NETCONF.
A BSID MUST be explicitly requested or signaled to the Junction node
for assignment. If the controller opts for local node assigned
value, it MUST wait to signal upstream Junction nodes about their
Junction segments in their outgoing SID lists. The BSID value MAY be
a constant value globally, if assigned by PCE/Controller, or may be a
different value on each Junction Node whether it’s assigned by the
controller or the local Junction Node itself.
Each SR Policy contains one or more SID lists. With the exception of
the penultimate node, these SID lists include at least two segment
identifiers: one SID for forwarding to the downstream Junction node
and one for the Junction Segment value (BSID) of the downstream node.
For directly connected neighbors, this may be the adjacency or node
SID for the neighbor. For Junction nodes that are not directly
connected, additional SIDs MAY be used to steer the packet along an
ECMP or non-ECMP path to the downstream Junction node.
Appendix A provides an example topology and resulting Junction
segments.
5.2. Tunnel with multiple ingress/egress
[I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte] specifies that an MPTE Tunnel could
have multiple ingress and/or multiple egress nodes. For controller-
initiated tunnels, the intended ingress and egress node(s) can be
provided to the controller based on implementation specific methods.
These may be signaled to the network as multiple tunnels to support
multi-ingress scenarios. Each tunnel can use a null Endpoint value
to support multi-egress.
MPTE SR Policies that are originated or defined by network devices
are typically limited to a single ingress and a single egress
endpoint unless protocols such as PCEP or NETCONF are extended to
encode additional intended destination node(s) for controller-based
path computation.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
As mentioned in Section 4.2, the DAG tunnel may be re-used by
multiple ingress SR Policies. This mechanism is used to support
achieving multiple ingress nodes originated from the network, by way
of the controller binding and attaching the ingress SR Policies to a
pre-existing DAG sharing the same intent and endpoints.
5.3. Load-balancing
When a packet with the BSID assigned to the Junction Segment is
received at its Junction Node, the node performs weighted non-equal
cost flow-based forwarding across all egress SID lists associated
with the Junction Segment.
As per [RFC9256] Section 2.11, The fraction of the flows associated
with a given segment list is w/Sw, where w is the weight of the
segment list and Sw is the sum of the weights of the segment lists.
To exclude forwarding via a specific egress interface while
preserving the forwarding structure, a weight value of zero is
assigned to the corresponding segment list.
5.4. Protection
As described in [I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte], as there are multiple
egress interfaces (SID Lists), the loss of one interface link does
not result in traffic drops, as long as one egress interface (SID
List) remains although congestion may occur. For example, in the
topology shown in Appendix A, Node C can tolerate the loss of up to 3
egress links and traffic will still forward (potentially with
congestion).
If a Junction Node experiences a failure of all egress links
(including any protection for those links), it will initially
blackhole traffic until upstream nodes are notified by the controller
to remove the failed Junction node from the DAG.
To reduce the risk of outages caused by single link failure, the
controller MAY optimize DAG deployment by assigning Junction Segments
only to nodes with more than one egress segment list. In other
words, if a node in the DAG has only one egress interface, it
functions solely as a transit node for an upstream Junction Segment
and does not receive a Junction Segment itself. For example, in the
topology shown in Appendix A, Node E is omitted from receiving a
Junction Segment as it only has 1 egress link.
Link protection from an upstream Junction node to its downstream
Junction nodes can be achieved using existing Topology Independent
Loop-Free Alternative (TI-LFA) [RFC9855] mechanisms, applied per
egress SID List on each Junction Segment. Since the top SID(s) in
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
each SID List identify the path to the next downstream Junction node,
TI-LFA is applicable. Effectively, TI-LFA is used to protect traffic
between Junction Segments along a path within the DAG and is not
intended to protect traffic directed toward the DAG’s egress nodes or
the entire DAG.
Local computation for node protection on an upstream Junction node is
not feasible, because it lacks visibility into the DAG beyond the
immediate downstream Junction node as it only knows the next Junction
Segment. A controller MAY be used to precompute backup SR Paths and
signal these backup SID Lists to the upstream Junction segments.
5.5. Hierarchy
The use of Junction Segments to achieve a DAG can be used in
hierarchical organization and sharing of DAGs between end-to-end
tunnels.
For instance, in a multi-area or multi-instance topology, one or more
shared DAGs may be created per area, connecting the border ingress
node(s) and egress node(s). These DAGs can then be stitched together
for use in an end-to-end SR tunnel.
Figure 1 is an example of two independent SR Policy Tunnels from
Headend A and Headend B terminating on Egress X. An instance of a
DAG with MID 100 can be configured between area border routers (ABR)
ABR-1 and the Egress X node. ABR-1 Junction Segment which ingresses
the DAG has a Binding Segment attached, for example BSID-100.
Therefore, the SID list on Headend A and Headend B SID lists would
contain the SR Path (ex: Node-SID-ABR-1) to reach ABR 1 followed by
BSID-100. The instruction set from each Headend to ABR 1 could also
be another instance of a DAG, either for independent use or shared.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| | |
+-------+ | ---\ |
| |--\ Path 1 | ---/ | ---\ |
|Headend| ----\ | ---/ -----\ --\ |
| A | ----\ +-----+-/ ---/ ---\ --+------+
+-------+ ----\ | | --/ -------| -- | |
| --- | ABR | ------------------- |Egress|
| --- | 1 | |DAG-100 | X |
+-------+ ----/ +-----+ --\ | ----- +------+
| | -----/ | -\ ----\-------/ -- |
|Headend| ----/ | --\ --- --/ |
| B |--/ Path 2 | -\ | --/ |
+-------+ | --\ --/ |
| | ---/ |
| | |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domain/Area 1 Domain/Area 2
Figure 1 : Reusable DAG 100
5.6. Directly connected Junction nodes
As described in the Operational section, all transit nodes in a DAG
MAY be signaled with a Junction Segment. Alternatively depending on
the topological graph and TE requirements, two Junction segments may
be interconnected via an SR Path, with a SID list, where the SR Path
itself may correspond to an ECMP or TE Path.
6. Optimization
6.1. Local optimization
Local optimization refers to updates applied to a single Junction
node that can be performed without requiring coordinated updates
across multiple nodes in the DAG. These operations are considered
safe when they do not introduce forwarding loops or cause
reachability interruptions within the DAG.
Examples of local optimizations include:
* Manipulating the weight distribution of the outgoing SID lists
* Replacing an existing SID list with a more optimal one (e.g. using
a new adjacency SID or updated SR path to the next Junction node).
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
* Adding a new SID list toward an egress node that is not itself a
Junction node.
* Removing a SID list, provided that at least one other outgoing SID
list remains active.
* Adding a new SID list to a Junction node that connects to a new
downstream sub-graph which is not yet connected to the DAG
structure.
While these operations are scoped to a single node, their correct
application may still require awareness of the surrounding DAG
structure to avoid introducing loops or reachability issues. For
instance, the addition of a new SID list may require confirmation
that the new sub-graph is not already part of the DAG, or that it
connects loop free.
Local optimizations may also be chained in sequence across multiple
nodes. When each step maintains loop free and reachable properties,
such a chain of updates is still considered local in nature.
For example:
* Cleaning up an upstream disconnected sub-graph following the
removal of an upstream SID list (BSID is no longer used)
It is important to note that local optimization differs from global
optimization in that it does not require versioning or re-signaling
of the entire DAG structure.
Since a Junction Segment is realized via an SR Policy, the controller
leverages existing protocol mechanisms to update a Junction segment
forwarding instructions, as the Junction Segment itself is
represented as a candidate path within the SR Policy. When updating
an existing candidate path, the binding SID MUST NOT change, as doing
so would cause traffic using that binding SID to drop until upstream
consumers are updated. Such a change should instead be treated as a
global optimization, not a local one.
Multiple candidate paths could be used to support more comprehensive
local optimizations. However, caution is required in how the MPTED
version is encoded and how version increments are signaled, since
candidate paths are signaled within the context of the SR Policy.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
If the same color value is reused and a new candidate path is
deployed, the new candidate path will not be installed in the
forwarding plane until the existing one is removed, as only one
candidate path may be active per SR Policy. This operation may not
be hitless, depending on hardware implementation.
Alternatively, if a different color value is used, the new candidate
path may be allowed to go active. However, it will still fail to do
so since it should be using the same binding SID as the existing
candidate path. This results in a collision, rendering the new path
ineligible, and may also violate protocol constraints that prohibit
such configurations.
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that local optimization be performed by
updating the SID list of the existing candidate path, rather than
introducing new candidate paths.
Appendix B provides examples of local optimization.
6.2. Global optimization
Global optimization of a DAG requires coordinated updates across all
participating Junction Nodes. This process follows a make-before-
break model, where a new version of the DAG is deployed alongside the
existing one. The ingress SR Policy (or policies) is the last
element to be updated.
Since the Color field of an SR Policy indicates DAG membership, and
is managed by the controller, global optimization with make-before-
break considerations necessitates deploying new Junction segments.
This, in turn, requires the instantiation of new SR Policies with
unique Color values. These new SR Policies are deployed to all
Junction Nodes participating in the updated DAG instance and MUST be
associated with distinct Binding SID values from those of the
existing instance.
To minimize version churn and both color and label consumption, it is
RECOMMENDED that controllers limit the number of concurrently
deployed DAG instances for the same tunnel. Under normal conditions,
only a single active DAG version should exist. During transitions,
at most two versions (the current and the new one) should be present.
Color and label values may be reused once globally released.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
The Binding SID associated with a DAG instance MUST remain constant
during local optimizations, but MUST change during global
optimizations to avoid the risk of routing loops. Therefore, in the
example above, if a Junction Node is participating in DAG #1, version
#1 continues to use one binding SID value and version #2 is using a
distinct binding SID value on each Junction node.
Once all Junction segments are deployed to all Junction nodes, the
ingress node is updated with new SID lists referencing the Binding
SIDs of the new Junction segments downstream.
The Color field on ingress nodes is critical for traffic steering and
therefore MUST remain constant during global optimizations. In
contrast, Color values used on Junction Nodes MAY be reused or
encoded to reflect DAG membership or instance mappings. Similarly,
the binding SID on the ingress SR Policy also remains constant.
The controller tracks the Color values and their corresponding usage
for DAG ID and version. For example:
* Color value 500 – DAG #1 – Version #1
* Color value 501 – DAG #2 – Version #1
* Color value 502 – DAG #1 – Version #2
When performing global changes, controllers SHOULD ensure that all
Junction Nodes are modified in a coordinated and consistent manner
before activating the new DAG on the ingress. If the update process
fails partially, the controller SHOULD roll back the new deployment
and retain the existing stable DAG version and its Junction Segments
to avoid inconsistencies in forwarding behavior.
Appendix C provides an example of global optimization.
7. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function through Configuration and Policy
This document describes using the existing SR Policy construct with a
color value representing the DAG MID and version. Since SR Policy
color value is originally intended for ingress traffic steering on
matched routers, a deployment MUST allocate a color range which will
be used for MPTE tunnels.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
7.2. Information and Data Models, e.g., MIB modules
TODO
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Liveness detection for an MPTE SR deployment has two scopes: the
underlying IP links and the DAG tunnel itself.
7.3.1. Topology
Seamless BFD (S-BFD) [RFC7880] is RECOMMENDED on each IP link to
quickly detect link failures in the underlying topology. When a link
goes down, any tunnel S-BFD session that traverses the link will also
fail (see the next section). The controller tracks IGP topology
changes and takes corrective action when necessary.
7.3.2. DAG Tunnel
Liveness detection of the DAG tunnel must verify end-to-end
forwarding across all Junction Nodes and the weighted forwarding
performed by each Junction Segment.
A single S-BFD session from the ingress headend to the DAG
endpoint(s) follows one hashed path through the DAG. It cannot
verify that every egress SID list on every Junction Node is
functional.
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that each egress SID list of each
Junction Segment run its own S-BFD session to the next downstream
node. On session failure:
* The affected SID list is marked inactive and removed from the
weighted ECMP set.
* If a Junction Segment has no active egress SID lists remaining,
the Junction Segment becomes inactive, which in turn fails any
upstream S-BFD sessions that use it.
This per-Junction, per-SID-list approach monitors every forwarding
segment of the DAG independently of hashing.
As a result, an egress node may receive many S-BFD packets, one per
SID list, per Junction Node, per DAG.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
7.4. Verifying Correct Operation
This section discusses OAM for SR-MPLS ([RFC8287]). Applicability to
SRv6 ([RFC9259]) is to be covered in a future revision.
As with S-BFD in Section 10.3.2, a single OAM probe from the ingress
follows only one hashed path through the DAG and does not exercise
every egress SID list on every Junction Node.
A controller can collect ping and traceroute results on a per-
Junction, per-SID-list basis and aggregate them into a holistic view
of the DAG. Each probe targets the path encoded in that SID list,
terminating at the next downstream Junction Node or DAG egress node,
so that every forwarding segment is verified independently of
upstream hashing. The controller may request results on-demand or
receive them periodically. The frequency in which to run OAM is
deployment specific.
Because these tests run independently and not necessarily at the same
instant, the aggregated view may contain timing skew between
individual measurements. Multiple samples per test are RECOMMENDED.
7.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
There are currently no new requirements on other protocols or
functional components.
7.6. Impact on Network Operation
TODO
8. Security Considerations
TODO
9. IANA Considerations
None at this time
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
[I-D.draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J., Gredler, H., and J.
Tantsura, "Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies using
BGP Link-State", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-17, 6 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
ls-sr-policy-17>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-
routing-te-policy-26, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-26>.
[I-D.draft-kompella-teas-mpte]
Kompella, K., Jalil, L., Khaddam, M., and A. Smith,
"Multipath Traffic Engineering", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-kompella-teas-mpte-02, 2 March 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kompella-
teas-mpte-02>.
[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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc5440>.
[RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7880>.
[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/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8231>.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8287>.
[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/rfc/rfc8402>.
[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/rfc/rfc9256>.
[RFC9259] Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Matsushima, S., Voyer, D., and M.
Chen, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
in Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9259, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9259>.
[RFC9552] Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9552>.
[RFC9855] Bashandy, A., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute Using Segment Routing", RFC 9855,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9855, October 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9855>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC9524] Voyer, D., Ed., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and
Z. Zhang, "Segment Routing Replication for Multipoint
Service Delivery", RFC 9524, DOI 10.17487/RFC9524,
February 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9524>.
Appendix A. DAG Example
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
+------+ +------+
| | 10 | |
--- | B | ----- | E |--
/ | | | | \
10 / +------+ +------+ \ 10
/ | 10 \
/ | \
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
| A | -----| C | ----- | F |---- | H |
| | 10 | | 5 | | 10 | |
+------+ +------+\ /+------+ +------+
\ | |5 \ / 5|(Pruned) /
\ | | / \ | /
20 \ +------+ / \+------+ / 10
\ | | 5 | | /
---| D | ----- | G |---
| | | |
+------+ +------+
Figure 2 : Example Topology to apply DAG
Figure 2 above presents a sample topology for one ingress and one
egress MPTE Tunnel established as an SR Policy. The MPTE tunnel is
from A to H. The figure presents the bi-directional link weights for
an arbitrary metric (IGP, TE, Delay etc).
Note there is a mesh between C, D, F and G of weight 5 per link.
Pruned represents an excluded link due to TE constraints (for
example, such as insufficient bandwidth). In the below, the
terminology {U,V} represents a unidirectional link between U and V.
The terminology Adj-SID-XY represents an adjacency SID from X to Y.
Node-SID-X represents the node SID path to X.
An MPTE DAG is computed to contain nodes B,C,D,E,F,G with the links
{G,F} / {F,G} pruned.
The below Junction Segments are deployed to the network realized with
an SR Policy with a single Candidate Path containing multiple segment
lists. Note the following:
* When the DAG is computed, loops cannot exist. Therefore, in the
above topology the links in direction {C,B} and {C,D} and {C,F}
and {C,G} are chosen in the DAG.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
* The path along {B,E,H} can be represented by a single Node SID. A
Junction on node E is not required. Junction Segment B may also
be omitted (as described in Section 5.3) but is utilized here for
example purposes.
* Junction F is described below, but an optimization could be
performed to exclude Junction F as it only has one egress link
(see Section 5.3).
* In practice the Binding Segments MAY all be the same value. This
example describes different BSID values for readability.
* Weights of each egress SID list is also currently omitted.
* The color on the ingress SR Policy still provides intent steering
for ingress traffic, therefore SHOULD be unique to the color value
of the Junction segments comprising the DAG to permit global make-
before-break behavior.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
Junction Segment B:
Color: 100
BSID: BSID-B
SID List 1: [Node-SID-H]
Junction Segment F:
Color: 100
BSID: BSID-F
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-FH]
Junction Segment G:
Color: 100
BSID: BSID-G
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-GH]
Junction Segment C:
Color: 100
BSID: BSID-C
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-CB, BSID-B]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-CF, BSID-F]
SID List 3: [Adj-SID-CG, BSID-G]
SID List 4: [Node-SID-D, BSID-D]
Junction Segment D:
Color: 100
BSID: BSID-D
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-DF, BSID-F]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-DG, BSID-G]
Then lastly, at ingress the SR Policy transport tunnel is configured with the following:
Ingress SR Policy (Using Junction Segments):
Color: 50
Candidate Path 1:
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-AB, BSID-B]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-AC, BSID-C]
SID List 3: [Adj-SID-AD, BSID-D]
In comparison, if the above DAG was encoded at ingress then the
following individual segment lists could be used to represent the
above DAG. Note, some of the below could be compressed with a Node
SID(s) but listed with adjacency for explicit example.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
Ingress SR Policy (Ingress only):
Color: 50
Candidate Path 1:
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-AC, Adj-SID-CF, Adj-SID-FH]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-AC, Node-SID-D, Adj-SID-DG, Adj-SID-GH]
SID List 3: [Adj-SID-AC, Node-SID-D, Adj-SID-DF, Adj-SID-FH]
SID List 4: [Adj-SID-AC, Adj-SID-CF, Adj-SID-CG, Adj-SID-GH]
SID List 5: [Adj-SID-AC, Adj-SID-CF, Adj-SID-BE, Adj-SID-EH]
SID List 6: [Adj-SID-AB, Node-SID-H]
SID List 7: [Adj-SID-AD, Adj-SID-DG, Adj-SID-GH]
SID List 8: [Adj-SID-AD, Adj-SID-DF, Adj-SID-FH]
Appendix B. Local Optimization Example
The following examples use the topology and Junction Segments from
the worked example in Appendix A.
Example 1 – Simple SID list update
* The Junction Segment B is updated. The SID list [Node-SID-H] is
replaced with SID List [Adj-SID-BE, Adj-SID-EH]
Example 2 – Chained Local Optimization
* The ingress SR Policy SID list is updated to remove { SID List 1:
[Adj-SID-AB, BSID-B] }. Only SID List 2 and SID List 3 remain in
the SR Policy candidate path
* The Junction Segment B is no longer used.
* A delete is sent to remove Junction Segment B
Appendix C. Global Optimization Example
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
| Z | -----| Y | ----- | X |---- | W |
| | | | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
\ | \ | /
\ | \ | /
\ +------+ \ +------+ /
\ | | | | /
---| V | ----- | U |---
| | | |
+------+ +------+
Figure 3 : Global MBB Example Topology
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
*Step 0 - Initial State*
Figure 3 gives an example topology containing a DAG which is to
undergo optimization. Node Z is the ingress Node with an SR Policy
color 1000 representing a service intent. Node W is the egress node.
Color 2000 is the DAG MID and version tracked by the controller. In
the existing state of the DAG, traffic flows from west to east, and
north to south on nodes Y and X. The diagonal link between Y and U
is currently not used.
Junction Segment Y1:
Color: 2000
BSID: BSID-Y1
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-YX, BSID-X1]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-YV, Adj-SID-VU]
Junction Segment X1:
Color: 2000
BSID: BSID-X1
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-XW]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-XU, Adj-SID-UW]
Ingress SR Policy:
Color: 1000
Candidate Path 1:
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-ZY, BSID-Y1]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-ZV, Adj-SID-VU, Adj-SID-UW]
*Step 1 - Deploy new Junction Segments*
An optimization calculation occurs requiring the DAG to change, the
traffic will now flow from south to north instead of north to south,
and the diagonal link between Y and U will be used.
The controller assigns and tracks color 2001 for the new DAG. The
following new Junction segments are deployed in the following order.
The BSID values are either assigned by the controller, or requested
by the node depending on the protocol in use. Note that after this
deployment node Y has two Junction segments installed on it, both of
which are active.
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
CREATE Junction Segment U2:
Color: 2001
BSID: BSID-U2
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-UX, ADJ-SID-XW]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-UW]
CREATE Junction Segment Y2:
Color: 2001
BSID: BSID-Y2
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-YX, ADJ-SID-XW]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-YU, BSID-U2]
CREATE Junction Segment V2:
Color: 2001
BSID: BSID-V2
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-VY, BSID-Y2]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-VU, BSID-U2]
*Step 2 - Update ingress nodes*
The existing SR Policy candidate path is updated to use the new DAG.
Note, the color and any associated binding SID values remain.
UPDATE Ingress SR Policy:
Color: 1000
Candidate Path 1:
SID List 1: [Adj-SID-ZY, BSID-Y2]
SID List 2: [Adj-SID-ZV, BSID-V2]
*Step 3 - Delete the no longer used Junction segments*
DELETE Junction Segment Y1:
Color: 2000
BSID: BSID-Y1
DELETE Junction Segment X1:
Color: 2000
BSID: BSID-X1
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Matthew Bocci, Richard "Footer" Foote, and Martin Vigoureux
for discussions on this document.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew Stone
Nokia
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft spring-mpte-sr June 2026
Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Nick Buraglio
Energy Sciences Network
Email: buraglio@forwardingplane.net
Shaofu Peng
ZTE Corporation
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Stone, et al. Expires 4 December 2026 [Page 24]