<?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-06" 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="May" day="12"/>

    <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'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Ketan Talaulikar'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Daniel Voyer'>
	 <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Alex Bogdanov'>
	 <organization>British Telecom</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Paul Mattes'>
	 <organization>Microsoft</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='22' month='March' year='2022'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any
   path.  Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source
   routing.  SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e.,
   instructions) that represent a source-routed policy.  Packet flows
   are steered into a SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated
   called a headend node.  The packets steered into an SR Policy carry
   an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.

   This document updates RFC8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy
   and steering into an SR Policy.

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


<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp'>
   <front>
      <title>PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths</title>
      <author fullname='Mike Koldychev'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Siva Sivabalan'>
	 <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Colby Barth'>
	 <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng'>
	 <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Hooman Bidgoli'>
	 <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='21' month='April' 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-07'/>
   <format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-07.txt' type='TXT'/>
</reference>



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


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


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


<reference anchor='I-D.schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy'>
   <front>
      <title>Circuit Style Segment Routing Policies</title>
      <author fullname='Christian Schmutzer'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Clarence Filsfils'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Zafar Ali'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Francois Clad'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Praveen Maheshwari'>
	 <organization>Airtel India</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Reza Rokui'>
	 <organization>Ciena</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Andrew Stone'>
	 <organization>Nokia</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Luay Jalil'>
	 <organization>Verizon</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shuping Peng'>
	 <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Tarek Saad'>
	 <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Daniel 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'>
	 <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Vishnu Pavan Beeram'>
	 <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Shaofu Peng'>
	 <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Quan Xiong'>
	 <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Mike Koldychev'>
	 <organization>Cisco Systems Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author fullname='Gyan Mishra'>
	 <organization>Verizon Communications Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <date day='14' month='November' year='2021'/>
      <abstract>
	 <t>   Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a
   Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective
   (e.g. low latency).  This document specifies an extension to Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.


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



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




    </references>

    <references title='Informative References'>





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



<reference anchor='RFC4655' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655'>
<front>
<title>A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture</title>
<author fullname='A. Farrel' initials='A.' surname='Farrel'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='J.-P. Vasseur' initials='J.-P.' surname='Vasseur'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='J. Ash' initials='J.' surname='Ash'><organization/></author>
<date month='August' year='2006'/>
<abstract><t>Constraint-based path computation is a fundamental building block for traffic engineering systems such as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks.  Path computation in large, multi-domain, multi-region, or multi-layer networks is complex and may require special computational components and cooperation between the different network domains.</t><t>This document specifies the architecture for a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based model to address this problem space.  This document does not attempt to provide a detailed description of all the architectural components, but rather it describes a set of building blocks for the PCE architecture from which solutions may be constructed.  This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4655'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC4655'/>
</reference>



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




    </references>



  </back>

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

</rfc>

