<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-12"
     ipr="trust200902" updates="9012">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Segment Routing Policies in BGP">Advertising Segment
    Routing Policies in BGP</title>

    <author fullname="Stefano Previdi" initials="S." surname="Previdi">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <code/>

          <country>IT</country>
        </postal>

        <email>stefano@previdi.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Brussels</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>BE</country>
        </postal>

        <email>cfilsfil@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ketan Talaulikar" initials="K." role="editor"
            surname="Talaulikar">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>India</country>
        </postal>

        <email>ketant.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Paul Mattes" initials="P." surname="Mattes">
      <organization>Microsoft</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>One Microsoft Way</street>

          <city>Redmond</city>

          <region>WA</region>

          <code>98052</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>pamattes@microsoft.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Dhanendra Jain" initials="D." surname="Jain">
      <organization>Google</organization>

      <address>
        <email>dhanendra.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date/>

    <abstract>
      <t>A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of segments (also
      referred to as instructions) that define a source-routed policy. An SR
      Policy consists of one or more candidate paths, each comprising one or
      more segment lists. A headend can be provisioned with these candidate
      paths using various mechanisms, such as CLI, NETCONF, PCEP, or BGP.</t>

      <t>This document specifies how BGP can be used to distribute SR Policy
      candidate paths. It introduces a BGP SAFI for advertising a candidate
      path of an SR Policy and defines sub-TLVs for the Tunnel Encapsulation
      Attribute to signal information related to these candidate paths.</t>

      <t>Furthermore, this document updates RFC9012 by extending the Color
      Extended Community to support additional steering modes over SR
      Policy.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="INTRO" title="Introduction">
      <t>Segment Routing (SR) <xref target="RFC8402"/> allows a headend node
      to steer a packet flow along a specific path. Intermediate per-path
      states are eliminated thanks to source routing.</t>

      <t>The headend node is said to steer a flow into an SR Policy <xref
      target="RFC8402"/>.</t>

      <t>The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of
      segments associated with that SR Policy.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC9256"/> further details the concepts of SR Policy
      and steering into an SR Policy. These apply equally to the SR-MPLS and
      Segment Routing for IPv6 (SRv6) data-plane instantiations of Segment
      Routing using SR-MPLS and SRv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs) as described
      in <xref target="RFC8402"/>. <xref target="RFC8660"/> describes the
      representation and processing of this ordered list of segments as an
      MPLS label stack for SR-MPLS. While <xref target="RFC8754"/> and <xref
      target="RFC8986"/> describe the same for SRv6 with the use of the
      Segment Routing Header (SRH).</t>

      <t>The SR Policy related functionality described in <xref
      target="RFC9256"/> can be conceptually viewed as being incorporated in
      an SR Policy Module (SRPM). Following is a reminder of the high-level
      functionality of SRPM: <list style="symbols">
          <t>Learning multiple candidate paths (CP) for an SR Policy via
          various mechanisms (CLI, NETCONF, PCEP, or BGP).</t>

          <t>Selection of the best candidate path for an SR Policy.</t>

          <t>Associating a Binding SID (BSID) to the selected candidate path
          of an SR Policy.</t>

          <t>Installation of the selected candidate path and its BSID in the
          forwarding plane.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>This document specifies the use of BGP to distribute one or more of
      the candidate paths of an SR Policy to the headend of that policy. The
      document describes the functionality provided by BGP and, as
      appropriate, provides references for the functionality which is outside
      the scope of BGP (i.e. resides within SRPM on the headend node).</t>

      <t>This document specifies a way of representing SR Policy candidate
      paths in BGP UPDATE messages. BGP can then be used to propagate the SR
      Policy candidate paths to the headend nodes in a network. The usual BGP
      rules for BGP propagation and best-path selection are used. At the
      headend of a specific policy, this will result in one or more candidate
      paths being installed into the "BGP table". These paths are then passed
      to the SRPM. The SRPM may compare them to candidate paths learned via
      other mechanisms and will choose one or more paths to be installed in
      the data plane. BGP itself does not install SR Policy candidate paths
      into the data plane.</t>

      <t>This document introduces a BGP subsequent address family (SAFI) for
      IPv4 and IPv6 address families. In UPDATE messages of those AFI/SAFIs,
      the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) identifies an SR
      Policy Candidate Path while the attributes encode the segment lists and
      other details of that SR Policy Candidate Path.</t>

      <t>While for simplicity we may write that BGP advertises an SR Policy,
      it is to be understood that BGP advertises a candidate path of an SR
      policy and that this SR Policy might have several other candidate paths
      provided via BGP (via an NLRI with a different distinguisher as defined
      in <xref target="SRPOLICYSAFI"/>), PCEP, NETCONF, or local policy
      configuration.</t>

      <t>Typically, a SR Policy Controller <xref target="RFC9256"/> defines
      the set of policies and advertises them to policy headend routers
      (typically ingress routers). These policy advertisements use the BGP
      extensions defined in this document. In most cases, the policy
      advertisement is tailored for a specific policy headend; consequently,
      it may be transmitted over a direct BGP session (i.e., without
      intermediate BGP hops) to that headend and is not propagated any
      further. In such cases, the policy advertisements will not traverse any
      Route Reflector (RR, <xref target="RFC4456"/>) (see <xref
      target="PROPAGATE"/>).</t>

      <t>Alternatively, a BGP egress router may advertise SR Policies that
      represent paths terminating on itself. In such cases, the router can
      send these policies directly to each headend over a dedicated BGP
      session, without necessitating any further propagation of the
      policy.</t>

      <t>In some situations, it is undesirable for a controller or BGP egress
      router to have a BGP session to each policy headend. In these
      situations, BGP Route Reflectors may be used to propagate the
      advertisements. In certain other deployments, it may be necessary for
      the advertisement to propagate through a sequence of one or more ASes
      within an SR Domain (refer to <xref target="Security"/> for the
      associated security considerations). To make this possible, an attribute
      needs to be attached to the advertisement that enables a BGP speaker to
      determine whether it is intended to be a headend for the advertised
      policy. This is done by attaching one or more Route Target Extended
      Communities to the advertisement <xref target="RFC4360"/>.</t>

      <t>The BGP extensions for the advertisement of SR Policies include
      following components: <list style="symbols">
          <t>A Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) whose NLRIs
          identifies an SR Policy candidate path.</t>

          <t>A Tunnel Type identifier for SR Policy, and a set of sub-TLVs to
          be inserted into the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (as defined in
          <xref target="RFC9012"/>) specifying segment lists of the SR Policy
          candidate path, as well as other information about the SR
          Policy.</t>

          <t>One or more IPv4 address-specific format route target extended
          community (<xref target="RFC4360"/>) attached to the SR Policy
          Candidate Path advertisement and that indicates the intended headend
          of such an SR Policy Candidate Path advertisement.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The SR Policy SAFI route updates utilize the Tunnel Encapsulation
      Attribute to signal an SR Policy, which itself functions as a tunnel.
      This usage differs notably from the approach described in <xref
      target="RFC9012"/>, where the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is
      associated with a BGP route update (e.g., for Internet or VPN routes) to
      specify the tunnel used for forwarding traffic. This document does not
      modify or supersede the usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for
      existing AFI/SAFIs as defined in <xref target="RFC9012"/>. Details
      regarding the processing of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for the
      SR Policy SAFI are provided in <xref target="ENCAPSATTR"/> and <xref
      target="ENDCOLOR"/>.</t>

      <t>The northbound advertisement of the operational state of the SR
      Policy Candidate Paths as part of BGP-LS <xref target="RFC9552"/>
      topology information is specified in <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy"/>.</t>

      <t>The signaling of Dynamic and Composite Candidate Paths (sections 5.2
      and 5.3 respectively of <xref target="RFC9256"/>) is outside the scope
      of this document.</t>

      <t>The Color Extended Community (as defined in <xref target="RFC9012"/>)
      is used to steer traffic into an SR Policy, as described in section 8.8
      of <xref target="RFC9256"/>. The <xref target="EXTCOLOR"/> of this
      document updates <xref target="RFC9012"/> with modifications to the
      format of the Flags field of the Color Extended Community by using the
      two leftmost bits of that field.</t>

      <section title="Requirements Language">
        <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>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ENCODING" title="SR Policy Encoding">
      <section anchor="SRPOLICYSAFI" title="SR Policy SAFI and NLRI">
        <t>A SAFI is introduced in this document: the SR Policy SAFI with
        codepoint 73. The AFI used MUST be IPv4(1) or IPv6(2).</t>

        <t>The SR Policy SAFI uses the NLRI format defined as follows: <figure
            align="center">
            <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+------------------+
|  NLRI Length     | 1 octet 
+------------------+
|  Distinguisher   | 4 octets 
+------------------+
|  Policy Color    | 4 octets
+------------------+
|  Endpoint        | 4 or 16 octets
+------------------+

Figure 1: SR Policy SAFI Format

where: ]]></artwork>
          </figure><list style="symbols">
            <t>NLRI Length: 1 octet indicating the length expressed in bits as
            defined in <xref target="RFC4760"/>. When AFI = 1 the value MUST
            be 96 and when AFI = 2 the value MUST be 192.</t>

            <t>Distinguisher: 4-octet value uniquely identifying the policy in
            the context of &lt;color, endpoint&gt; tuple. The distinguisher
            has no semantic value and is solely used by the SR Policy
            originator to make unique (from an NLRI perspective) both for
            multiple candidate paths of the same SR Policy as well as
            candidate paths of different SR Policies (i.e. with different
            segment lists) with the same Color and Endpoint but meant for
            different headends. The distinguisher is the discriminator of the
            SR Policy candidate path as specified in section 2.5 of <xref
            target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

            <t>Policy Color: 4 octets that carry an unsigned non-zero integer
            value indicating the color of the SR Policy as specified in
            section 2.1 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>. The color is used to
            match the color of the destination prefixes to steer traffic into
            the SR Policy as specified in section 8 of <xref
            target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

            <t>Endpoint: value identifies the endpoint of a policy. The
            Endpoint may represent a single node or a set of nodes (e.g., an
            anycast address). The Endpoint is an IPv4 (4-octet) address or an
            IPv6 (16-octet) address according to the AFI of the NLRI. The
            address can be either a unicast or an unspecified address (0.0.0.0
            for IPv4, :: for IPv6), known as null endpoint, as specified in
            section 2.1 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The color and endpoint are used to automate the steering of BGP
        service routes on SR Policy as described in section 8 of <xref
        target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

        <t>The NLRI containing an SR Policy candidate path is carried in a BGP
        UPDATE message <xref target="RFC4271"/> using BGP multi-protocol
        extensions <xref target="RFC4760"/> with an AFI of 1 or 2 (IPv4 or
        IPv6) and with a SAFI of 73. The fault management and error handling
        in the encoding of the NLRI is specified in <xref
        target="ERROR"/>.</t>

        <t>An update message that carries the MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI
        attribute with the SR Policy SAFI MUST also carry the BGP mandatory
        attributes. In addition, the BGP update message MAY also contain any
        of the BGP optional attributes.</t>

        <t>The next-hop network address field in SR Policy SAFI (73) updates
        may be either a 4-octet IPv4 address or a 16-octet IPv6 address,
        independent of the SR Policy AFI. The length field of the next-hop
        address specifies the next-hop address family. If the next-hop length
        is 4, then the next-hop is an IPv4 address; if the next-hop length is
        16, then it is a global IPv6 address; if the next-hop length is 32,
        then it has a global IPv6 address followed by a link-local IPv6
        address. The setting of the next-hop field and its attendant
        processing is governed by standard BGP procedures as described in
        section 3 of <xref target="RFC4760"/> and section 3 of <xref
        target="RFC2545"/>.</t>

        <t>It is important to note that at any BGP speaker receiving BGP
        updates with SR Policy NLRIs, the SRPM processes only the best path as
        per the BGP best-path selection algorithm. In other words, this
        document leverages the existing BGP propagation and best-path
        selection rules. Details of the procedures are described in <xref
        target="OPERATIONS"/>.</t>

        <t>It has to be noted that if several candidate paths of the same SR
        Policy (endpoint, color) are signaled via BGP to a headend, then it is
        RECOMMENDED that each NLRI uses a different distinguisher. If BGP has
        installed into the BGP table two advertisements whose respective NLRIs
        have the same color and endpoint, but different distinguishers, both
        advertisements are passed to the SRPM as different candidate paths
        along with their respective originator information (i.e., ASN and BGP
        Router-ID) as described in section 2.4 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.
        The ASN would be the ASN of the origin and the BGP Router-ID is
        determined in the following order:<list style="symbols">
            <t>From the Route Origin Community <xref target="RFC4360"/> if
            present and carrying an IP Address, or</t>

            <t>As the BGP Originator ID <xref target="RFC4456"/> if present,
            or</t>

            <t>As the BGP Router-ID of the peer from which the update was
            received as a last resort.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The Section 2.9 of <xref target="RFC9256"/> specifies the selection
        of the active candidate path of the SR Policy by the SRPM based on the
        information provided to it by BGP.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="ENCAPSATTR"
               title="SR Policy and Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute">
        <t>The content of the SR Policy Candidate Path is encoded in the
        Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute defined in <xref target="RFC9012"/>
        using a Tunnel-Type called SR Policy Type with codepoint 15. The use
        of SR Policy Tunnel-type is applicable only for the AFI/SAFI pairs of
        (1/73, 2/73). This document specifies the use of the Tunnel
        Encapsulation Attribute with the SR Policy Tunnel-Type and the use of
        any other Tunnel-Type with the SR Policy SAFI MUST be considered
        malformed and handled by the "Treat-as-Withdraw" strategy <xref
        target="RFC7606"/>.</t>

        <t>The SR Policy Encoding structure is as follows: <figure
            align="center">
            <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes:
   Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (23) 
      Tunnel Type: SR Policy (15)
          Binding SID
          SRv6 Binding SID
          Preference 
          Priority
          Policy Name
          Policy Candidate Path Name
          Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
          Segment List
              Weight 
              Segment 
              Segment 
              ... 
          ...

Figure 2: SR Policy Encoding

where:]]></artwork>
          </figure><list style="symbols">
            <t>SR Policy SAFI NLRI is defined in <xref
            target="SRPOLICYSAFI"/>.</t>

            <t>Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is defined in <xref
            target="RFC9012"/>.</t>

            <t>Tunnel-Type is set to 15.</t>

            <t>Preference, Binding SID, SRv6 Binding SID, Priority, Policy
            Name, Policy Candidate Path Name, ENLP, Segment-List, Weight, and
            Segment sub-TLVs are defined in <xref target="SRPOLICYTLV"/>.</t>

            <t>Additional sub-TLVs may be defined in the future.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>A Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute MUST NOT contain more than one TLV
        of type "SR Policy"; such updates MUST be considered malformed and
        handled by the "Treat-as-Withdraw" strategy <xref
        target="RFC7606"/>.</t>

        <t>BGP does not need to perform the validation of the tunnel (i.e., SR
        Policy) itself as indicated in section 6 of <xref target="RFC9012"/>.
        The validation of the SR Policy information that is advertised using
        the sub-TLVs specified in <xref target="SRPOLICYTLV"/> is performed by
        the SRPM.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="ENDCOLOR"
               title="Applicability of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs">
        <t>The Tunnel Egress Endpoint and Color sub-TLVs of the Tunnel
        Encapsulation Attribute, as defined in <xref target="RFC9012"/>, are
        not utilized for SR Policy encodings. Consequently, their values are
        not relevant within the context of the SR Policy SAFI NLRI. If these
        sub-TLVs are present, a BGP speaker MUST ignore them and MAY remove
        them from the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute during propagation.</t>

        <t>Similarly, any other sub-TLVs, including those specified in <xref
        target="RFC9012"/>, that do not have explicitly defined applicability
        to the SR Policy SAFI MUST be ignored by the BGP speaker and MAY be
        removed from the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute during
        propagation.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="SRPOLICYTLV" title="SR Policy Sub-TLVs">
        <t>This section specifies the sub-TLVs defined for encoding the
        information about the SR Policy Candidate Path.</t>

        <t>Preference, Binding SID, SRv6 Binding SID, Segment-List, Priority,
        Policy Name, Policy Candidate Path Name, and Explicit NULL Label
        Policy are all optional sub-TLVs introduced for the BGP Tunnel
        Encapsulation Attribute <xref target="RFC9012"/> being defined in this
        section.</t>

        <t>Weight and Segment are sub-TLVs of the Segment-List sub-TLV
        mentioned above.</t>

        <t>An early version of this document included only the Binding SID
        sub-TLV that could be used for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 Binding SIDs. The
        SRv6 Binding SID TLV was introduced in later versions to support the
        advertisement of additional SRv6 capabilities without affecting
        backward compatibility for early implementations.</t>

        <t>The fault management and error handling in the encoding of the
        sub-TLVs defined in this section are specified in <xref
        target="ERROR"/>. For the TLVs/sub-TLVs that are specified as single
        instance, only the first instance of that TLV/sub-TLV is used and the
        other instances MUST be ignored and MUST NOT considered to be
        malformed.</t>

        <t>None of the sub-TLVs defined in the following sub-sections have any
        effect on the BGP best-path selection or propagation procedures. These
        sub-TLVs are not used by the BGP path selection process and are
        instead passed on to SRPM as SR Policy Candidate Path information for
        further processing described in section 2 of <xref
        target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

        <t>The use of SR Policy Sub-TLVs is applicable only for the AFI/SAFI
        pairs of (1/73, 2/73). Future documents may extend their applicability
        to other AFI/SAFI.</t>

        <section anchor="PREFTLV" title="Preference Sub-TLV">
          <t>The Preference sub-TLV is used to carry the Preference of an SR
          Policy candidate path. The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the
          SRPM as described in section 2.7 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <t>The Preference sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more
          than once in the SR Policy encoding.</t>

          <t>The Preference sub-TLV has following format: <figure
              align="center">
              <artwork align="left"><![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      |     Flags     |   RESERVED    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      Preference (4 octets)                    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

Figure 3: Preference sub-TLV

where:       ]]></artwork>
            </figure><list style="symbols">
              <t>Type: 12</t>

              <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not
              including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value
              MUST be 6.</t>

              <t>Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this
              document. The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission
              and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to
              zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>Preference: a 4-octet value indicating the Preference of the
              SR Policy Candidate Path as described in section 2.7 of <xref
              target="RFC9256"/>.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="BINDINGSIDTLV" title="Binding SID Sub-TLV">
          <t>The Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal the binding SID related
          information of the SR Policy candidate path. The contents of this
          sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in section 6 in <xref
          target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <t>The Binding SID sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more
          than once in the SR Policy encoding.</t>

          <t>When the Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal an SRv6 SID, the
          selection of the corresponding SRv6 Endpoint Behavior <xref
          target="RFC8986"/> to be instantiated is determined by the headend
          node. It is RECOMMENDED that the SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV, as
          defined in Section 2.4.3, be used to explicitly specify the SRv6
          Endpoint Behavior when signaling an SRv6 Binding SID for an SR
          Policy candidate path.</t>

          <t>The Binding SID sub-TLV has the following format: <figure
              align="center">
              <artwork align="left"><![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      |     Flags     |   RESERVED    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|              Binding SID (variable, optional)                 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

Figure 4: Binding SID sub-TLV

where:       ]]></artwork>
            </figure><list style="symbols">
              <t>Type: 13</t>

              <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not
              including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value
              MUST be one of: 18 when a SRv6 BSID is present, 6 when a SR-MPLS
              BSID is present, or 2 when no BSID is present.</t>

              <t>Flags: 1 octet of flags. The following flags are defined in
              the registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in <xref
              target="IANABSIDFLAGS"/>: <figure align="center">
                  <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|I|           | 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 5: SR Policy Binding SID Flags

]]></artwork>
                </figure>where:<list>
                  <t>S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only"
                  behavior. It is used by SRPM as described in section 6.2.3
                  in <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

                  <t>I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid"
                  behavior. It is used by SRPM as described in section 8.2 in
                  <xref target="RFC9256"/> to define a specific SR Policy
                  forwarding behavior. The flag indicates that the SR Policy
                  is to perform the "drop upon invalid" behavior when no valid
                  candidate path (CP) is available for this SR Policy. In this
                  situation, the CP with the highest preference amongst those
                  with the "drop upon invalid" config is made active to drop
                  traffic steered over the SR Policy.</t>

                  <t>The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero
                  upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. MUST be set to zero on
              transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>Binding SID: If the length is 2, then no Binding SID is
              present. If the length is 6 then the Binding SID is encoded in 4
              octets using the format below. Traffic Class (TC), S, and TTL
              (Total of 12 bits) are RESERVED and MUST be set to zero and MUST
              be ignored. <figure>
                  <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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Label                        | TC  |S|       TTL     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 6: Binding SID Label Encoding 

]]></artwork>
                </figure>The Label field is validated by the SRPM, but MUST
              NOT contain the reserved MPLS label values (0-15). If the length
              is 18 then the Binding SID contains a 16-octet SRv6 SID.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="SRV6BINDINGSIDTLV" title="SRv6 Binding SID Sub-TLV">
          <t>The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal the SRv6 Binding
          SID related information of an SR Policy candidate path. It enables
          the specification of the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior <xref
          target="RFC8986"/> to be instantiated on the headend node. The
          contents of this sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in
          section 6 in <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <t>The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV is OPTIONAL. More than one SRv6
          Binding SID sub-TLVs MAY be signaled in the same SR Policy encoding
          to indicate one or more SRv6 SIDs, each with potentially different
          SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors to be instantiated.</t>

          <t>The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV has the following format: <figure
              align="center">
              <artwork align="left"><![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      |     Flags     |   RESERVED    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                 SRv6 Binding SID (16 octets)                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
//     SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure (optional)     //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 7: SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV

where:       ]]></artwork>
            </figure><list style="symbols">
              <t>Type: 20</t>

              <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not
              including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value
              MUST be 26 when the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure is
              present else it MUST be 18.</t>

              <t>Flags: 1 octet of flags. The following flags are defined in
              the registry "SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags" as described in
              <xref target="IANASRV6BSIDFLAGS"/>: <figure align="center">
                  <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|I|B|         | 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 8: SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags

]]></artwork>
                </figure> where:<list>
                  <t>S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only"
                  behavior. It is used by SRPM as described in section 6.2.3
                  in <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

                  <t>I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid"
                  behavior. It is used by SRPM as described in section 8.2 in
                  <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

                  <t>B-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates the presence of
                  the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure encoding
                  specified in <xref target="BEHAVIORSTRUCT"/>.</t>

                  <t>The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero
                  upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to
              zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>SRv6 Binding SID: Contains a 16-octet SRv6 SID. The value 0
              MAY be used when the controller wants to indicate the desired
              SRv6 Endpoint Behavior, SID Structure, or flags without
              specifying the BSID.</t>

              <t>SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure: Optional, as
              defined in <xref target="BEHAVIORSTRUCT"/>. The SRv6 Endpoint
              Behavior and SID Structure MUST NOT be included when the SRv6
              SID has not been included.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="SLTLV" title="Segment List Sub-TLV ">
          <t>The Segment List sub-TLV encodes a single explicit path towards
          the endpoint as described in section 5.1 of <xref
          target="RFC9256"/>. The Segment List sub-TLV includes the elements
          of the paths (i.e., segments) as well as an optional Weight
          sub-TLV.</t>

          <t>The Segment List sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in length due to a
          large number of segments. A 2-octet length is thus required.
          According to section 2 of <xref target="RFC9012"/>, the sub-TLV type
          defines the size of the length field. Therefore, for the Segment
          List sub-TLV, a code point of 128 or higher is used.</t>

          <t>The Segment List sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MAY appear multiple
          times in the SR Policy encoding. The ordering of Segment List
          sub-TLVs does not matter since each sub-TLV encodes a Segment
          List.</t>

          <t>The Segment List sub-TLV contains zero or more Segment sub-TLVs
          and MAY contain a Weight sub-TLV.</t>

          <t>The Segment List sub-TLV has the following format: <figure
              align="center">
              <artwork align="left"><![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    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
//                           sub-TLVs                          //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 9: Segment List sub-TLV

where:]]></artwork>
            </figure><list style="symbols">
              <t>Type: 128.</t>

              <t>Length: the total length (not including the Type and Length
              fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Segment List sub-TLV
              in terms of octets.</t>

              <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to
              zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>sub-TLVs currently defined: <list>
                  <t>An optional single Weight sub-TLV.</t>

                  <t>Zero or more Segment sub-TLVs.</t>
                </list></t>
            </list></t>

          <t>Validation of an explicit path encoded by the Segment List
          sub-TLV is beyond the scope of BGP and performed by the SRPM as
          described in section 5 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <section anchor="WEIGHTTLV" title="Weight Sub-TLV">
            <t>The Weight sub-TLV specifies the weight associated with a given
            segment list. The contents of this sub-TLV are used only by the
            SRPM as described in section 2.11 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

            <t>The Weight sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than
            once inside the Segment List sub-TLV.</t>

            <t>The Weight sub-TLV has the following format: <figure
                align="center">
                <artwork align="left"><![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      |     Flags     |   RESERVED    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                              Weight                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  

Figure 10: Weight sub-TLV

where:]]></artwork>
              </figure></t>

            <t><list style="symbols">
                <t>Type: 9.</t>

                <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not
                including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The
                value MUST be 6.</t>

                <t>Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this
                document. The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission
                and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

                <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set
                to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

                <t>Weight: 4 octets an unsigned integer value indicating the
                weight associated with a segment list as described in section
                2.11 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>. A weight value of zero is
                invalid.</t>
              </list></t>
          </section>

          <section anchor="SEGMENTTLV" title="Segment Sub-TLVs">
            <t>A Segment sub-TLV describes a single segment in a segment list
            (i.e., a single element of the explicit path). One or more Segment
            sub-TLVs constitute an explicit path of the SR Policy candidate
            path. The contents of these sub-TLVs are used only by the SRPM as
            described in section 4 in <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

            <t>The Segment sub-TLVs are OPTIONAL and MAY appear multiple times
            in the Segment List sub-TLV.</t>

            <t>Section 4 of <xref target="RFC9256"/> defines several Segment
            Types:<figure align="center">
                <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[Type  A: SR-MPLS Label
Type  B: SRv6 SID
Type  C: IPv4 Prefix with optional SR Algorithm
Type  D: IPv6 Global Prefix with optional SR Algorithm for SR-MPLS
Type  E: IPv4 Prefix with Local Interface ID
Type  F: IPv4 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair
Type  G: IPv6 Prefix and Interface ID for link endpoints as Local, 
         Remote pair for SR-MPLS
Type  H: IPv6 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair 
         for SR-MPLS
Type  I: IPv6 Global Prefix with optional SR Algorithm for SRv6 
Type  J: IPv6 Prefix and Interface ID for link endpoints as Local,
         Remote pair for SRv6
Type  K: IPv6 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair 
         for SRv6

]]></artwork>
              </figure></t>

            <t>The following sub-sections specify the sub-TLVs used for
            Segment Types A and B. The other segment types are specified in
            <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext"/>. As specified in
            section 5.1 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>, a mix of SR-MPLS and SRv6
            segments make the segment-list invalid.</t>

            <section anchor="TYPEA" title="Segment Type A">
              <t>The Type A Segment Sub-TLV encodes a single SR-MPLS SID. The
              format is as follows and is used to encode MPLS Label fields as
              specified in <xref target="RFC3032"/> <xref target="RFC5462"/>.:
              <figure align="center">
                  <artwork align="left"><![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      |     Flags     |   RESERVED    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Label                        | TC  |S|       TTL     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 11: Type A Segment sub-TLV

where:]]></artwork>
                </figure><list style="symbols">
                  <t>Type: 1.</t>

                  <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e.,
                  not including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets.
                  The value MUST be 6.</t>

                  <t>Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in <xref
                  target="SEGMENTFLAGS"/>.</t>

                  <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be
                  set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
                  receipt.</t>

                  <t>Label: 20 bits of label value.</t>

                  <t>TC: 3 bits of traffic class.</t>

                  <t>S: 1 bit of bottom-of-stack.</t>

                  <t>TTL: 1 octet of TTL.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>The following applies to the Type-1 Segment sub-TLV:<list
                  style="symbols">
                  <t>The S bit MUST be zero upon transmission and MUST be
                  ignored upon reception.</t>

                  <t>If the originator wants the receiver to choose the TC
                  value, it sets the TC field to zero.</t>

                  <t>If the originator wants the receiver to choose the TTL
                  value, it sets the TTL field to 255.</t>

                  <t>If the originator wants to recommend a value for these
                  fields, it puts those values in the TC and/or TTL
                  fields.</t>

                  <t>The receiver MAY override the originator's values for
                  these fields. This would be determined by local policy at
                  the receiver. One possible policy would be to override the
                  fields only if the fields have the default values specified
                  above.</t>
                </list></t>
            </section>

            <section anchor="TYPEB" title="Segment Type B">
              <t>The Type B Segment Sub-TLV encodes a single SRv6 SID. The
              format is as follows: <figure align="center">
                  <artwork align="left"><![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      |     Flags     |   RESERVED    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
//                       SRv6 SID (16 octets)                  //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
//           SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure          //
//                    (optional, 8 octets)                     //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 12: Type B Segment sub-TLV

where:]]></artwork>
                </figure><list style="symbols">
                  <t>Type: 13.</t>

                  <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e.,
                  not including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets.
                  The value MUST be 26 when the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID
                  Structure is present else it MUST be 18.</t>

                  <t>Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in <xref
                  target="SEGMENTFLAGS"/>.</t>

                  <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be
                  set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
                  receipt.</t>

                  <t>SRv6 SID: 16 octets of IPv6 address.</t>

                  <t>SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure: Optional, as
                  defined in <xref target="BEHAVIORSTRUCT"/>. The SRv6
                  Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure MUST NOT be included
                  when the SRv6 SID has not been included.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>The Sub-TLV code point 2 defined for the advertisement of
              Segment Type B in the earlier versions of this document has been
              deprecated to avoid backward compatibility issues.</t>
            </section>

            <section anchor="SEGMENTFLAGS" title="SR Policy Segment Flags">
              <t>The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the
              following SR Policy Segment Flags in their "Flags" field. Also
              refer to <xref target="IANASIDFLAGS"/>: <figure align="center">
                  <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V|   |B|       | 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 22: SR Policy Segment Flags

]]></artwork>
                </figure> where:<list>
                  <t>V-Flag: This flag, when set, is used by SRPM for "SID
                  verification" as described in Section 5.1 of <xref
                  target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

                  <t>B-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates the presence of
                  the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure encoding
                  specified in <xref target="BEHAVIORSTRUCT"/>.</t>

                  <t>The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero
                  upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>The following applies to the Segment Flags:<list
                  style="symbols">
                  <t>V-Flag applies to all Segment Types.</t>

                  <t>B-Flag applies to Segment Type B. If B-Flag appears with
                  Segment Type A it MUST be ignored.</t>
                </list></t>
            </section>

            <section anchor="BEHAVIORSTRUCT"
                     title="SRv6 SID Endpoint Behavior and Structure">
              <t>The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above MAY contain the
              SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure <xref
              target="RFC8986"/> encoding as described below: <figure
                  align="center">
                  <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       Endpoint Behavior       |            Reserved           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    LB Length  |  LN Length    | Fun. Length   |  Arg. Length  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 23: SRv6 SID Endpoint Behavior and Structure

]]></artwork>
                </figure> where:<list>
                  <t>Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. It carries the SRv6 Endpoint
                  Behavior code point for this SRv6 SID as defined in section
                  10.2 of <xref target="RFC8986"/>. When set with the value
                  0xFFFF (i.e., Opaque), the choice of SRv6 Endpoint Behavior
                  is left to the headend.</t>

                  <t>Reserved: 2 octets of reserved bits. This field MUST be
                  set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
                  receipt.</t>

                  <t>Locator Block Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block
                  length in bits.</t>

                  <t>Locator Node Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node
                  length in bits.</t>

                  <t>Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in
                  bits.</t>

                  <t>Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in
                  bits.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>The total of the locator block, locator node, function, and
              argument lengths MUST be less than or equal to 128.</t>
            </section>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section anchor="ENLPTLV" title="Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV">
          <t>To steer an unlabeled IP packet into an SR policy, it is
          necessary to push a label stack of one or more labels on that
          packet.</t>

          <t>The Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) sub-TLV is used to indicate
          whether an Explicit NULL Label <xref target="RFC3032"/> must be
          pushed on an unlabeled IP packet before any other labels.</t>

          <t>If an ENLP Sub-TLV is not present, the decision of whether to
          push an Explicit NULL label on a given packet is a matter of local
          configuration.</t>

          <t>The ENLP sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than
          once in the SR Policy encoding.</t>

          <t>The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in
          section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <figure align="center">
            <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      |     Flags     |   RESERVED    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     ENLP      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 24: ELNP sub-TLV

]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>Where:<list>
              <t>Type: 14.</t>

              <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not
              including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value
              MUST be 3.</t>

              <t>Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this
              document. The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission
              and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to
              zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>ENLP (Explicit NULL Label Policy): Indicates whether Explicit
              NULL labels are to be pushed on unlabeled IP packets that are
              being steered into a given SR policy. The following values have
              been currently defined for this field:<list>
                  <t>1: Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4
                  packet, but do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an
                  unlabeled IPv6 packet.</t>

                  <t>2: Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6
                  packet, but do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an
                  unlabeled IPv4 packet.</t>

                  <t>3: Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4
                  packet, and push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled
                  IPv6 packet.</t>

                  <t>4: Do not push an Explicit NULL label.</t>
                </list>This field can have one of the values as specified in
              <xref target="IANAENLP"/>. The ENLP unassigned values may be
              used for future extensions. Implementations adhering to this
              document MUST ignore the ENLP Sub-TLV with unrecognized values
              (viz. other than 1 through 4). The behavior signaled in this
              Sub-TLV MAY be overridden by local configuration by the network
              operator based on their deployment requirements. The section 4.1
              of <xref target="RFC9256"/> describes the behavior on the
              headend for the handling of the explicit null label.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="POLICYPRIORITY" title="Policy Priority Sub-TLV">
          <t>An operator MAY set the Policy Priority sub-TLV to indicate the
          order in which the SR policies are re-computed upon topological
          change. The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as
          described in section 2.12 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <t>The Priority sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than
          once in the SR Policy encoding.</t>

          <t>The Priority sub-TLV has following format:</t>

          <figure align="center">
            <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      |  Priority     |   RESERVED    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 25: Priority sub-TLV

]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>Where:<list>
              <t>Type: 15</t>

              <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not
              including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets.The value
              MUST be 2.</t>

              <t>Priority: a 1-octet value indicating the priority as
              specified in section 2.12 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

              <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to
              zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="POLICYCPNAME"
                 title="Policy Candidate Path Name Sub-TLV">
          <t>An operator MAY set the Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV to
          attach a symbolic name to the SR Policy candidate path.</t>

          <t>Usage of Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV is described in
          section 2.6 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <t>The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in
          length due to a long name. A 2-octet length is thus required.
          According to section 2 of <xref target="RFC9012"/>, the sub-TLV type
          defines the size of the length field. Therefore, for the Policy
          Candidate Path Name sub-TLV a code point of 128 or higher is
          used.</t>

          <t>It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the symbolic name for the
          candidate path is limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose
          to truncate long names to 255 bytes when signaling via BGP.</t>

          <t>The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST
          NOT appear more than once in the SR Policy encoding.</t>

          <t>The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV has following format:</t>

          <figure align="center">
            <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    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
//              Policy Candidate Path Name                     //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 26: Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV

]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>Where:<list>
              <t>Type: 129.</t>

              <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not
              including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value
              is variable.</t>

              <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to
              zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>Policy Candidate Path Name: Symbolic name for the SR Policy
              candidate path without a NULL terminator with encoding as
              specified in section 2.6 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="POLICYNAME" title="Policy Name Sub-TLV">
          <t>An operator MAY set the Policy Name sub-TLV to associate a
          symbolic name with the SR Policy for which the candidate path is
          being advertised via the SR Policy NLRI.</t>

          <t>Usage of Policy Name sub-TLV is described in section 2.1 of <xref
          target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <t>The Policy Name sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in length due to a
          long policy name. A 2-octet length is thus required. According to
          section 2 of <xref target="RFC9012"/>, the sub-TLV type defines the
          size of the length field. Therefore, for the Policy Name sub-TLV a
          code point of 128 or higher is used.</t>

          <t>It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the symbolic name for the SR
          Policy is limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose to
          truncate long names to 255 bytes when signaling via BGP.</t>

          <t>The Policy Name sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more
          than once in the SR Policy encoding.</t>

          <t>The Policy Name sub-TLV has following format:</t>

          <figure align="center">
            <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    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
//                        Policy Name                          //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 27: Policy Name sub-TLV

]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>Where:<list>
              <t>Type: 130</t>

              <t>Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not
              including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value
              is variable.</t>

              <t>RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to
              zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

              <t>Policy Name: Symbolic name for the SR Policy without a NULL
              terminator with encoding as specified in section 2.1 of <xref
              target="RFC9256"/>.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="EXTCOLOR" title="Color Extended Community">
      <t>The Color Extended Community <xref target="RFC9012"/> is used to
      steer traffic corresponding to BGP routes into an SR Policy with
      matching color value. The Color Extended Community MAY be carried in any
      BGP UPDATE message whose AFI/SAFI is 1/1 (IPv4 Unicast), 2/1 (IPv6
      Unicast), 1/4 (IPv4 Labeled Unicast), 2/4 (IPv6 Labeled Unicast), 1/128
      (VPN-IPv4 Labeled Unicast), 2/128 (VPN-IPv6 Labeled Unicast), or 25/70
      (Ethernet VPN, usually known as EVPN). Use of the Color Extended
      Community in BGP UPDATE messages of other AFI/SAFIs is not covered by
      <xref target="RFC9012"/> and is hence outside the scope of this document
      as well.</t>

      <t>Two bits from the Flags field of the Color Extended Community are
      used as follows to support the requirements of Color-Only steering as
      specified in Section 8.8 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>: <figure
          align="center">
          <artwork><![CDATA[                     1
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C O|        Unassigned         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 28: Color Extended Community Flags

]]></artwork>
        </figure>The CO bits together form the Color-Only Type field which
      indicates the various matching criteria between BGP NH and SR Policy
      endpoint in addition to the matching of the color value. Following types
      are defined:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Type 0 (bits 00): Specific Endpoint Match: Request match for the
          endpoint that is the BGP NH</t>

          <t>Type 1 (bits 01): Specific or Null Endpoint Match: Request match
          for either the endpoint that is the BGP NH or a null endpoint (e.g.,
          like a default gateway)</t>

          <t>Type 2 (bits 10): Specific, Null, or Any Endpoint Match: Request
          match for either the endpoint that is the BGP NH or with a null or
          any endpoint</t>

          <t>Type 3 (bits 11): reserved for future use and SHOULD NOT be used.
          Upon reception, an implementation MUST treat it like Type 0.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The details of the SR Policy steering mechanisms based on these
      Color-Only types are specified in section 8.8 of <xref
      target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

      <t>One or more Color Extended Communities MAY be associated with a BGP
      route update. Sections 8.4.1, 8.5.1, and 8.8.2 of <xref
      target="RFC9256"/> specify the steering behaviors over SR Policies when
      multiple Color Extended Communities are associated with a BGP route.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="OPERATIONS" title="SR Policy Operations">
      <t>As mentioned in <xref target="INTRO"/>, BGP is not the actual
      consumer of an SR Policy NLRI. BGP is in charge of the origination and
      propagation of the SR Policy NLRI but its installation and use are
      outside the scope of BGP. The details of SR Policy installation and use
      are specified in <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

      <section anchor="CONFIG" title="Advertisement of SR Policies">
        <t>Typically, but not limited to, an SR Policy is computed by a
        controller or a path computation engine (PCE) and originated by a BGP
        speaker on its behalf.</t>

        <t>Multiple SR Policy NLRIs may be present with the same &lt;color,
        endpoint&gt; tuple but with different distinguishers when these SR
        policies are intended for different headends.</t>

        <t>The distinguisher of each SR Policy NLRI prevents undesired BGP
        route selection among these SR Policy NLRIs and allows their
        propagation across route reflectors <xref target="RFC4456"/>.</t>

        <t>Moreover, one or more route targets SHOULD be attached to the
        advertisement, where each route target identifies one or more intended
        headends for the advertised SR Policy update.</t>

        <t>If no route target is attached to the SR Policy NLRI, then it is
        assumed that the originator sends the SR Policy update directly (e.g.,
        through a BGP session) to the intended receiver. In such a case, the
        NO_ADVERTISE community <xref target="RFC1997"/> MUST be attached to
        the SR Policy update (see further details in <xref
        target="PROPAGATE"/>).</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="RECEPT" title="Reception of an SR Policy NLRI">
        <t>On reception of an SR Policy NLRI, a BGP speaker first determines
        if it is valid as described in <xref target="ACCEPT"/> and then
        performs the decision process for selection of the best route (Section
        9.1 of <xref target="RFC4271"/>). The key difference from the base BGP
        decision process is that BGP does not download the selected best
        routes of SR Policy SAFI into the forwarding and instead considers
        them "usable" for passing on to the SRPM for further processing as
        described in <xref target="USABLE"/>. The selected best route is
        "propagated" (Section 9.1.3 of <xref target="RFC4271"/>) as described
        in <xref target="PROPAGATE"/> irrespective of its "usability" by the
        local router.</t>

        <section anchor="ACCEPT" title="Validation of an SR Policy NLRI">
          <t>When a BGP speaker receives an SR Policy NLRI from a neighbor it
          MUST first perform validation based on the following rules in
          addition to the validation described in <xref target="ERROR"/>:
          <list style="symbols">
              <t>The SR Policy NLRI MUST include a distinguisher, color, and
              endpoint field which implies that the length of the NLRI MUST be
              either 12 or 24 octets (depending on the address family of the
              endpoint).</t>

              <t>The SR Policy update MUST have either the NO_ADVERTISE
              community or at least one route target extended community in
              IPv4-address format or both. If a router supporting this
              specification receives an SR Policy update with no route target
              extended communities and no NO_ADVERTISE community, the update
              MUST be considered as malformed.</t>

              <t>The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute MUST be attached to the
              BGP Update and MUST have a Tunnel Type TLV set to SR Policy
              (codepoint is 15).</t>
            </list></t>

          <t>A router that receives an SR Policy update that is not valid
          according to these criteria MUST treat the update as malformed and
          the SR Policy candidate path MUST NOT be passed to the SRPM.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="USABLE"
                 title="Eligibility for Local Use of an SR Policy NLRI">
          <t>An SR Policy NLRI update without any route target extended
          community but having the NO_ADVERTISE community is considered
          usable.</t>

          <t>If one or more route targets are present, then at least one route
          target MUST match the BGP Identifier of the receiver for the update
          to be considered usable. The BGP Identifier is defined in <xref
          target="RFC4271"/> as a 4-octet IPv4 address and updated by <xref
          target="RFC6286"/> as a 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero integer.
          Therefore, the route target extended community MUST be of the same
          format.</t>

          <t>If one or more route targets are present and none matches the
          local BGP Identifier, then, while the SR Policy NLRI is valid, it is
          not usable on the receiver node.</t>

          <t>When the SR Policy tunnel type includes any sub-TLV that is
          unrecognized or unsupported, the update SHOULD NOT be considered
          usable. An implementation MAY provide an option for ignoring
          unsupported sub-TLVs.</t>

          <t>Once BGP on the receiving node has determined that the SR Policy
          NLRI is usable, it passes the SR Policy candidate path to the SRPM.
          Note that, along with the candidate path details, BGP also passes
          the originator information for breaking ties in the candidate path
          selection process as described in section 2.4 of <xref
          target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

          <t>When an update for an SR Policy NLRI results in its becoming
          unusable, BGP MUST delete its corresponding SR Policy candidate path
          from the SRPM.</t>

          <t>The SRPM applies the rules defined in section 2 of <xref
          target="RFC9256"/> to determine whether the SR Policy candidate path
          is valid and to select the active candidate path for a given SR
          Policy.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="PROPAGATE" title="Propagation of an SR Policy">
          <t>SR Policy NLRIs that have the NO_ADVERTISE community attached to
          them MUST NOT be propagated.</t>

          <t>By default, a BGP node receiving an SR Policy NLRI MUST NOT
          propagate it to any EBGP neighbor. An implementation MAY provide an
          explicit configuration to override this and enable the propagation
          of valid SR Policy NLRIs to specific EBGP neighbors where the SR
          domain comprises multiple-ASes within a single service provider
          domain (see <xref target="Security"/> for details).</t>

          <t>A BGP node advertises a received SR Policy NLRI to its IBGP
          neighbors according to normal IBGP propagation rules.</t>

          <t>By default, a BGP node receiving an SR Policy NLRI SHOULD NOT
          remove route target extended community before propagation. An
          implementation MAY provide support for configuration to filter
          and/or remove route target extended community before
          propagation.</t>

          <t>A BGP node MUST NOT alter the SR Policy information carried in
          the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute during propagation.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ERROR" title="Error Handling and Fault Management">
      <t>This section describes the error handling actions, as described in
      <xref target="RFC7606"/>, that are to be performed for the handling of
      the BGP update messages for BGP SR Policy SAFI.</t>

      <t>A BGP Speaker MUST perform the following syntactic validation of the
      SR Policy NLRI to determine if it is malformed. This includes the
      validation of the length of each NLRI and the total length of the
      MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes. It also includes the
      validation of the consistency of the NLRI length with the AFI and the
      endpoint address as specified in <xref target="SRPOLICYSAFI"/>.</t>

      <t>When the error determined allows for the router to skip the malformed
      NLRI(s) and continue the processing of the rest of the update message,
      then it MUST handle such malformed NLRIs as 'Treat-as-withdraw'. In
      other cases, where the error in the NLRI encoding results in the
      inability to process the BGP update message (e.g. length related
      encoding errors), then the router SHOULD handle such malformed NLRIs as
      'AFI/SAFI disable' when other AFI/SAFI besides SR Policy are being
      advertised over the same session. Alternately, the router MUST perform
      'session reset' when the session is only being used for SR Policy or
      when it 'AFI/SAFI disable' action is not possible.</t>

      <t>The validation of the TLVs/sub-TLVs introduced in this document and
      defined in their respective sub-sections of <xref target="SRPOLICYTLV"/>
      MUST be performed to determine if they are malformed or invalid. The
      validation of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute itself and the other
      TLVs/sub-TLVs specified in Section 13 of <xref target="RFC9012"/> MUST
      be done as described in that document. In case of any error detected,
      either at the attribute or its TLV/sub-TLV level, the
      "treat-as-withdraw" strategy MUST be applied. This is because an SR
      Policy update without a valid Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (comprising
      of all valid TLVs/sub-TLVs) is not usable.</t>

      <t>An SR Policy update that is determined to be not valid, and therefore
      malformed, based on rules described in <xref target="ACCEPT"/> MUST be
      handled by the "treat-as-withdraw" strategy.</t>

      <t>The validation of the individual fields of the TLVs/sub-TLVs defined
      in <xref target="SRPOLICYTLV"/> are beyond the scope of BGP as they are
      handled by the SRPM as described in the individual TLV/sub-TLV
      sub-sections. A BGP implementation MUST NOT perform semantic
      verification of such fields nor consider the SR Policy update to be
      invalid or not usable based on such validation.</t>

      <t>An implementation SHOULD log any errors found during the above
      validation for further analysis.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document uses code point allocations from the following existing
      registries:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters
          registry</t>

          <t>BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types registry under
          the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation registry</t>

          <t>BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs registry under the
          BGP Tunnel Encapsulation registry</t>

          <t>Color Extended Community Flags registry under the BGP Tunnel
          Encapsulation registry</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>This document also requests the creation of the following new
      registries: <list style="symbols">
          <t>SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs under the BGP Tunnel
          Encapsulation registry</t>

          <t>SR Policy Binding SID Flags under the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
          registry</t>

          <t>SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags under the BGP Tunnel
          Encapsulation registry</t>

          <t>SR Policy Segment Flags under the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
          registry</t>

          <t>Color Extended Community Color-Only Types registry under the BGP
          Tunnel Encapsulation registry</t>

          <t>SR Policy ENLP Values under the Segment Routing registry</t>
        </list></t>

      <section anchor="IANASAFI"
               title="Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters">
        <t>This document introduces a SAFI in the registry "Subsequent Address
        Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" that has been assigned a code
        point by IANA. The entry needs to be updated as follows:<figure
            align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[Code Point    Description          Reference 
-----------------------------------------------
   73        SR Policy SAFI       This document

     Table 1: BGP SAFI Code Point

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANATUNNEL"
               title="BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types">
        <t>This document introduces a Tunnel-Type in the registry "BGP Tunnel
        Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" that has been assigned a
        codepoint by IANA. The entry needs to be updated as follows:<figure
            align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[Code Point     Description            Reference 
--------------------------------------------------
   15          SR Policy           This document 

     Table 2: Tunnel Type Code Point

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANATUNNSUBTLV"
               title="BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs">
        <t>This document defines sub-TLVs in the registry "BGP Tunnel
        Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" that have been assigned code points
        by IANA as follows via the early allocation process which needs to be
        made permanent:<figure align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[Code Point         Description                  Reference 
------------------------------------------------------------
12          Preference sub-TLV                  This document 
13          Binding SID sub-TLV                 This document
14          ENLP sub-TLV                        This document
15          Priority sub-TLV                    This document
20          SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV            This document
128         Segment List sub-TLV                This document
129         Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV  This document
130         Policy Name sub-TLV                 This document

     Table 3: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Code Points

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANAEXTCOM" title="Color Extended Community Flags">
        <t>This document defines the use of 2 bits in the registry called
        "Color Extended Community Flags" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation"
        registry that have been assigned by IANA via the early allocation
        process to form the Color-Only Types field which needs to be made
        permanent:<figure align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[    Bit
 Position     Description                         Reference 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  0-1       Color-only Types Field                This document

     Table 4: Color Extended Community Flag Bits
    ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANASIDLIST" title="SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs">
        <t>This document requests the creation of a new registry called "SR
        Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation"
        registry. The allocation policy of this registry is "IETF Review"
        according to <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>

        <t>Following initial Sub-TLV codepoints are assigned by this
        document:<figure align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[Value   Description                     Reference 
-----------------------------------------------------
  0    Reserved                         This document
  1    Segment Type A sub-TLV           This document
  2    Deprecated                       This document
 3-8   Unassigned
  9    Weight sub-TLV                   This document
 10    Deprecated                       This document
 11    Deprecated                       This document
 12    Deprecated                       This document
 13    Segment Type B sub-TLV           This document
14-255 Unassigned

     Table 5: SR Policy Segment List Code Points

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANABSIDFLAGS" title="SR Policy Binding SID Flags">
        <t>This document requests the creation of a new registry called "SR
        Policy Binding SID Flags" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation"
        registry. The allocation policy of this registry is "Standards Action"
        according to <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>

        <t>The following flags are defined:<figure align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ Bit     Description                               Reference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   0     Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag)         This document
   1     Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag)           This document
 2-7     Unassigned  

     Table 6: SR Policy Binding SID Flags

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANASRV6BSIDFLAGS"
               title="SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags">
        <t>This document requests the creation of a new registry called "SR
        Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation"
        registry. The allocation policy of this registry is "Standards Action"
        according to <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>

        <t>The following flags are defined:<figure align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ Bit     Description                               Reference 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   0     Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag)         This document
   1     Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag)           This document
   2     SRv6 Endpoint Behavior & 
         SID Structure Flag (B-Flag)               This document
 3-7     Unassigned 

     Table 7: SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags
                                 ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANASIDFLAGS" title="SR Policy Segment Flags">
        <t>This document requests the creation of a new registry called "SR
        Policy Segment Flags" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation" registry.
        The allocation policy of this registry is "IETF Review" according to
        <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>

        <t>The following flags are defined:<figure align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ Bit     Description                                Reference 
------------------------------------------------------------------
   0     Segment Verification Flag (V-Flag)         This document
  1-2    Unassigned
   3     SRv6 Endpoint Behavior & 
         SID Structure Flag (B-Flag)                This document
 4-7     Unassigned  

     Table 8: SR Policy Segment Flags
                                ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANAEXTCOMCOFIELD"
               title="Color Extended Community Color-Only Types">
        <t>This document requests the creation of a new registry called "Color
        Extended Community Color-Only Types" under the "BGP Tunnel
        Encapsulation" registry for assignment of codepoints (values 0 through
        3) in the Color-Only Type field of the Color Extended Community Flags
        field. The allocation policy of this registry is "Standards Action"
        according to <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>

        <t>The following types are defined:<figure align="center">
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ Type  Description                           Reference 
-----------------------------------------------------------
  0    Specific Endpoint Match               This document
  1    Specific or Null Endpoint Match       This document
  2    Specific, Null, or Any Endpoint Match This document
  3    Unassigned                            This document

     Table 9: Color Extended Community Color-Only Types
 ]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IANAENLP" title="SR Policy ENLP Values">
        <t>Note to IANA (RFC editor to remove this before publication): The
        new registry creation request below is also present in the
        draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp. IANA is requested to process
        the registry creation via the first of these two documents to reach
        publication stage and the authors of the other document would update
        the IANA considerations suitably.</t>

        <t>This document requests IANA to maintain a new registry under
        "Segment Routing" registry group with the allocation policy of
        "Standards Action" <xref target="RFC8126"/>. The new registry is
        called "SR Policy ENLP Values" and contains the codepoints allocated
        to the "ENLP" field defined in <xref target="ENLPTLV"/>. The registry
        contains the following codepoints, with initial values, to be assigned
        by IANA with the reference set to this document:<figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[+-------+-----------------------------------+---------------+
| Code  |                                   |               |
| Point |  Description                      |  Reference    |
+-------+-----------------------------------+---------------+
|   0   | Reserved (not to be used)         | This document |
|   1   | Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label  | This document |
|       | on an unlabeled IPv4 packet, but  |               |
|       | do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL |               |                
|       | label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet |               |
|   2   | Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label  | This document |
|       | on an unlabeled IPv6 packet, but  |               |
|       | do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL |               |
|       | label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet |               |
|   3   | Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label  | This document |
|       | on an unlabeled IPv6 packet, and  |               |
|       | push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label  |               |
|       | on an unlabeled IPv4 packet       |               |
|   4   | Do not push an Explicit NULL      | This document |
|       | label                             |               |
| 5-255 | Unassigned                        |               |
+-------+-----------------------------------+---------------+

     Table 10: SR Policy ENLP Values
 
]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The security mechanisms of the base BGP security model apply to the
      extensions described in this document as well. See the Security
      Considerations section of <xref target="RFC4271"/> for a discussion of
      BGP security. Also, refer to <xref target="RFC4272"/> and <xref
      target="RFC6952"/> for analysis of security issues for BGP.</t>

      <t>The BGP SR Policy extensions specified in this document enable
      traffic engineering and service programming use-cases within an SR
      domain as described in <xref target="RFC9256"/>. SR operates within a
      trusted SR domain <xref target="RFC8402"/> and its security
      considerations also apply to BGP sessions when carrying SR Policy
      information. The SR Policies distributed by BGP are expected to be used
      entirely within this trusted SR domain which comprises a single AS or
      multiple ASes/domains within a single provider network. Therefore,
      precaution is necessary to ensure that the SR Policy information
      advertised via BGP sessions is limited to nodes in a secure manner
      within this trusted SR domain. BGP peering sessions for address-families
      other than SR Policy SAFI may be set up to routers outside the SR
      domain. The isolation of BGP SR Policy SAFI peering sessions may be used
      to ensure that the SR Policy information is not advertised by accident
      or error to an EBGP peering session outside the SR domain.</t>

      <t>Additionally, it may be considered that the export of SR Policy
      information, as described in this document, constitutes a risk to
      confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially sensitive
      information about the network (more specifically endpoint/node
      addresses, SR SIDs, and the SR Policies deployed). BGP peerings are not
      automatic and require configuration; thus, it is the responsibility of
      the network operator to ensure that only trusted nodes (that include
      both routers and controller applications) within the SR domain are
      configured to receive such information.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Manageability" title="Manageability Considerations">
      <t>The specification of BGP models is an ongoing work based on <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model"/> and its future extensions are expected
      to cover the SR Policy SAFI. Existing BGP operational procedures also
      apply to the SAFI specified in this document. The management,
      operations, and monitoring of BGP speakers and the SR Policy SAFI
      sessions between them are not very different from other BGP sessions and
      can be managed using the same data models.</t>

      <t>The YANG model for the operation and management of SR Policies <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang"/> reports the SR Policies
      provisioned via BGP SR Policy SAFI along with their operational
      states.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgments">
      <t>The authors of this document would like to thank Shyam Sethuram, John
      Scudder, Przemyslaw Krol, Alex Bogdanov, Nandan Saha, Bruno Decraene,
      Gurusiddesh Nidasesi, Kausik Majumdar, Zafar Ali, Swadesh Agarwal, Jakob
      Heitz, Viral Patel, Peng Shaofu, Cheng Li, Martin Vigoureux, John
      Scudder, Vincent Roca, Brian Haberman, Mohamed Boucadair, Shunwan
      Zhuang, Andrew Alston, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang, Nagendra Nainar, Rajesh
      Melarcode Venkateswaran, Nat Kao, Boris Hassanov, Vincent Roca, Russ
      Housley, and Dan Romascanu for their comments and review of this
      document. The authors would like to thank Susan Hares for her detailed
      shepherd review that helped in improving the document.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Contributors" title="Contributors">
      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Eric Rosen
Juniper Networks
US

Email: erosen@juniper.net]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Arjun Sreekantiah
Cisco Systems
US

Email: asreekan@cisco.com]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems
US

Email: acee@cisco.com]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems
US

Email: msiva@cisco.com]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Imtiyaz Mohammad
Arista Networks
India

Email: imtiyaz@arista.com]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Gaurav Dawra
Cisco Systems
US

Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Peng Shaofu
ZTE Corporation
China

Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Steven Lin
Calix
USA

Email: steven.lin@calix.com]]></artwork>
      </figure>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1997"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2545"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5462"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4760"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4271"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6286"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4360"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7606"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3032"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9012"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8402"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8660"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8754"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9256"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8986"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informational References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4272"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4456"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6952"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9552"?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
