<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-10"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP p2mp sr policy">PCEP extensions for P2MP SR
    Policy</title>

    <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H." role="editor"
            surname="Bidgoli">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Ottawa</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <email>hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="V." surname="Voyer">
      <organization>Bell Canada</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Montreal</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>daniel.voyer@bell.ca</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Anuj Budhiraja" initials="A." surname="Budhiraja">
      <organization>Cisco System</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

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

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>abudhira@cisco.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Rishabh" initials="R." surname="Parekh">
      <organization>Cisco System</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

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

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>riparekh@cisco.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
      <organization>Ciena</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Ottawa</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>ssivabal@ciena.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="19" month="February" year="2025"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>Segment Routing (SR) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are a set of
      policies that enable architecture for P2MP service delivery. This
      document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
      Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and
      initiate P2MP paths from a Root to a set of Leaf nodes.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <!-- 1 -->

      <t>The document <xref target="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"/> defines a
      variant of the SR Policy that uses <xref target="RFC9256"/> for
      constructing a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) segment to support multicast
      service delivery.</t>

      <t>A P2MP SR Policy is constructed using one or more Replication
      segments (<xref target="RFC9524"/>) from a Root node to a set of Leaf
      nodes, optionally through a set of intermediate transit nodes that
      perform replication.</t>

      <t>A Replication segment <xref target="RFC9524"/>, corresponds to the
      forwarding state of a P2MP segment on a particular node and provide
      forwarding instructions for the segment.</t>

      <t>A SR P2MP Policy is installed only on the Root node of a P2MP tree
      and consists of one or more Candidate paths. Each Candidate path is made
      up of path-instances, and each path-instance is constructed in the
      network via Replication segments. Replication segments are installed on
      the Root node, Leaf nodes, and optionally, intermediate replication
      nodes.</t>

      <t>Replication segments may be directly or indirectly connected within
      an SR Domain. One or more SR segments are used to steer traffic between
      adjacent and non-adjacent replicating nodes.</t>

      <t>There are two types of a P2MP Tree: Ingress Replication and
      Replication tree.</t>

      <t>A P2MP service delivery could be via Ingress Replication <xref
      target="RFC7988"/>. Dataplane packet replication only occurs on the
      Root, which forwards individual copies of traffic to each leaf directly
      over a segment routed path. The corresponding SR P2MP Policy consists of
      Replication segments only for the Root node and the Leaf nodes.</t>

      <t>A P2MP service delivery could be via Downstream Replication, known as
      Replication Tree. The corresponding SR P2MP policy consists of
      Replication segments on the Root, Leaf, and Transit nodes which exist in
      the topology between the Root and Leaf nodes. The Root and Transit nodes
      perform dataplane packet replication along the tree as a packet
      traverses from the root towards each leaf.</t>

      <t>The PCE discovers the root and the leaves via different methods. As
      an example, the leaves and the root can be explicitly configured on the
      PCE or PCC can update the PCE with the identity of the root and the
      leaves when it discovers them via multicast protocols like MP-BGP and
      MVPN procedures <xref target="RFC6513"/> or PIM. Once the controller is
      informed of the Root node and Leaf nodes, it can calculate the SR P2MP
      Policy and any of the required Replication segments from the Root node
      to the Leaf nodes. The computation may include traffic engineering
      criteria and any additional Service Leave Agreements (SLAs) that is used
      to construct the tree.</t>

      <t>This document defines PCEP objects, TLVs and the procedures to
      instantiate a P2MP Policy and Replication Segments.</t>

      <t>Only Stateful PCE is within scope of this document and Stateless PCE
      only is out of scope.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="new section">
      <t>This section defines terms used frequently in this document. Refer to
      Terminology sections of <xref target="RFC9256"/>, and <xref
      target="RFC9524"/> for other terms used in Segment Routing.</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Unicast Segment Routing (SR): Standard Segment Routing
          constructs, capabilities and behavior which is not multicast or
          replication aware.</t>

          <t>Replication segment: A segment in SR domain that replicates
          packets. See <xref target="RFC9524"/>, for details.</t>

          <t>Replication node: A node in SR domain which replicates packets
          based on Replication segment.</t>

          <t>Downstream nodes: A Replication segment replicates packets to a
          set of nodes. These nodes are Downstream nodes.</t>

          <t>Replication state: State held for a Replication segment at a
          Replication node. It is conceptually a list of replication branches
          to Downstream nodes. The list can be empty.</t>

          <t>Replication SID: Data plane identifier of a Replication segment.
          This is a SR-MPLS label or SRv6 Segment Identifier (SID).</t>

          <t>Point-to-Multipoint Service: A service that has one ingress node
          and one or more egress nodes. A packet is delivered to all the
          egress nodes</t>

          <t>Transit node: alternative name for Replication node</t>

          <t>Root node: An ingress node of a P2MP service,</t>

          <t>Leaf node: An egress node of a P2MP service.</t>

          <t>Bud node: A node that is both a Replication node and a Leaf
          node.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Requirements Language ">
      <!-- 2 -->

      <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 title="Overview of PCEP Operation in SR P2MP Network">
      <!-- 3-->

      <t>After discovering the Root node and Leaf nodes, the PCE programs the
      PCCs with relevant information needed to create a P2MP Tree.</t>

      <t>As per document <xref target="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"/> a P2MP
      Policy is defined by Root-ID, Tree-ID and a set of leaves. A SR P2MP
      policy is a variant of SR policy as such it inherits similar concept as
      draft <xref target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>. A P2MP
      policy is composed of a collection of SR P2mp Candidate Paths. Candidate
      paths are computed by the PCE and can be used for P2MP Tree redundancy.
      Only a single candidate path may be active at each time. Each candidate
      paths can be globally optimized, therefore it consists of multiple
      path-instances. A path-instance can be considered as a P2MP LSP. If a
      candidate path needs to be globally optimized two path-instances can be
      programmed from the root the leaves and via make before break procedures
      the candidate path can be switched from path-instance one to the second
      path-instance. The forwarding states of these path-instances are build
      via replication segments. Each path-instance initiated on the root has
      its own set of replication segments on the Root, Transit and Leaf
      nodes.</t>

      <t>A replication segment is set of forwarding instructions on a specific
      node. Each instruction may be a PUSH or SWAP operation before forwarding
      out of an interface, or a POP action on bud and leaf nodes.</t>

      <t>PCE MAY also calculate and download additional information for the
      replication segments, such as protections next-hops for link
      protection.</t>

      <section title="Related and Inherited Documents">
        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t><xref target="RFC8231"/> The bases for a stateful PCE, and
            reuses the following objects or a variant of them<list
                style="symbols">
                <t>&lt;SRP Object&gt;</t>

                <t>&lt;LSP Object&gt;</t>

                <t>A variation of the LSP identifier TLV is defined in this
                draft, to support P2MP LSP Identifier</t>
              </list></t>

            <t><xref target="RFC8306"/> P2MP capabilities advertisement</t>

            <t><xref target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>
            Candidate paths for SR P2MP Policy is used for Tree Redundancy. As
            an example, a P2MP Policy can have multiple candidate paths. Each
            protecting the primary candidate path. The active path is chosen
            via the preference of the candidate path.</t>

            <t><xref target="RFC3209"/> Defines the instance-ID, instance-ID
            is used for global optimization of a candidate path with in a P2MP
            policy. Each Candidate path can have 2 path-instances. These
            path-instances are equivalent to sub-lsps (instance-IDs). There
            are used for MBB and global optimization procedures. instance-ID
            is equivalent to LSP ID</t>

            <t><xref target="RFC9256"/> Segment-list, used for connecting two
            non-adjacent replication policy via a unicast binding SID or
            Segment-list.</t>

            <t><xref target="RFC8306"/> P2MP End Point objects, used for the
            PCC to update the PCE with discovered Leaves.</t>

            <t><xref target="RFC9050"/> for programming and identifying the
            Replication Segment. A new PCE CC Capability sub Tlv is introduced
            to indicated the support to handle PCE CC based label download for
            SR P2MP.</t>

            <t><xref
            target="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr"/>defines
            CCI object-type for SR-MPLS. This document redefines a new version
            of the SR-MPLS CCI object-type.</t>

            <t><xref target="draft-ietf-pce-multipath"/> Forwarding
            instruction for a P2MP LSP is defined by a set of SR-ERO
            sub-objects in the ERO object, ERO-ATTRIBUTES object and
            MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV as defined in this draft.</t>

            <t><xref target="RFC8664"/> SR-ERO Sub Object used in the
            multipath.</t>
          </list>It should be noted that the <xref
        target="draft-hb-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-yang"/> can provide further
        details of the high level P2MP Policy Model.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Overview of SR P2MP Policy Objects">
        <!-- 3.1 -->

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>SR P2MP Policy<list style="symbols">
                <t>Is only relevant on the Root of the P2MP tree and is a
                policy on PCE. It is downloaded only on the root node and is
                identified via &lt;Root-ID, Tree-ID&gt; It contains the
                following information: <list style="symbols">
                    <t>Root node of the P2MP Segment</t>

                    <t>Set of Leaf nodes of the P2MP Segment</t>

                    <t>Tree-ID, which is a unique identifier of the P2MP tree
                    on the Root</t>

                    <t>A set of Candidate paths belonging to the policy</t>

                    <t>Optional Constraints used to build these candidate
                    paths</t>
                  </list></t>
              </list></t>
          </list><list style="symbols">
            <t>Candidate Path:<list style="symbols">
                <t>Is used for P2MP Tree redundancy where the candidate path
                with the highest preference is the active path.</t>

                <t>Each Candidate Path can contain two path-instance for
                global optimization procedures (i.e. make before break)</t>

                <t>Contains information regarding originator, discriminator,
                preference, path-instances</t>
              </list></t>

            <t>Path-instance:<list style="symbols">
                <t>Is used for global optimization of the candidate path.
                Multiple path-instance can be present under a candidate path
                but only a single path instance is active at a time.</t>

                <t>A path instance is identified via &lt;Root-ID, Tree-ID,
                Instance-ID&gt;</t>
              </list></t>

            <t>Replication Segment:<list style="symbols">
                <t>Is the forwarding information needed on each replication
                node for building the forwarding path for each path-instance
                of the P2MP Candidate path.</t>

                <t>Explained further in upcoming sections, there are 2 ways to
                identify the replication segment, depending on the type of
                replication segment (shared replication segment or non-shared
                replication segment)<list style="symbols">
                    <t>It is identified via Tree-ID and Root-ID and
                    path-instance for non-shared replication segment.</t>

                    <t>It is identified via Node-ID, Replication-ID, for
                    shared replication segment. As per <xref
                    target="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"/> a shared
                    replication segment is not associated to a tree and is
                    used for constructing by-pass tunnels.</t>

                    <t>Contains forwarding instructions, in the form of a list
                    of outgoing segments each of which may be a segment list
                    or a single replication segment with next-hop
                    information.</t>

                    <t>On the forwarding plane the Replication Segment is
                    identified via the incoming Replication SID.</t>

                    <t>Is established on every node that may replicate (e.g.,
                    Root, Transit, Bud) or receive (e.g., Leaf) the packet in
                    an SR P2MP tree.</t>
                  </list></t>
              </list></t>
          </list></t>

        <section title="SR P2MP Policy and Candidate Path Identification">
          <t>A SR P2MP Policy and its candidate path can be identified on the
          root via the P2MP LSP Object. This Object is a variation of the LSP
          ID Object defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/> and is as follow:</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>PLSP-ID: <xref target="RFC8231"/>, is assigned by PCC and is
              unique per candidate path. It is constant for the lifetime of a
              PCEP session. Each additional Candidate path is assigned a new
              PLSP-ID by PCC. Multiple Candidate paths can co-exist but only
              one is active.</t>

              <t>Root-ID: is equivalent to the first node on the SR P2MP
              path.</t>

              <t>Tree-ID: an identifier that is unique in context of the Root
              node. This value may be assigned manually on the Root node or
              advertised via the Provider Tunnel Association(PTA) in a
              multicast BGP Auto-Discovery(AD) route.</t>

              <t>Instance-ID: serves as the path-instance identifier and is
              assigned by the PCE. A candidate path can have up to two path
              instances for global optimization. Instance-IDs are unique
              within the SR P2MP policy and are assigned by the PCE per path
              instance. While different P2MP policies may use the same
              Instance-ID for their path instances, each path instance within
              a candidate path of an SR P2MP policy should use the same
              Instance-ID across the Root, Transit, and Leaf nodes when
              programming its replication segments on the PCC.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="Replication Segment Identification ">
          <t>The key to identify a replication segment is also a P2MP LSP
          Object. With varying encoding rules for the SR-P2MP-LSP- IDENTIFIER
          TLV which will be explained in later sections.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="PCECC Use in Replication Segment">
          <t>PCECC and a variant of CCI object is used in Replication Segment
          to identify a cross connect. A cross connect is a incoming SID and
          set of outgoing interfaces and their corresponding SID or SID List.
          The CCI objects contains the incoming SID and the outgoing
          interfaces which are presented via the ERO objects, which each may
          contain a segment list.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="PCEP Prodecures ">
        <t>A SR P2MP policy on the Root can be either PCE-initiated or
        PCC-initiated, depending on how the Root and Leaf nodes are
        discovered. A PCE-initiated SR P2MP policy is configured directly on
        the PCE, while a PCC-initiated SR P2MP policy may be triggered by the
        PCC, sourced from local configuration or discovered with multicast
        protocols such as MVPN (see <xref target="RFC6513"/>), PIM, IGMP etc.
        In both cases, PCE-initiated mechanisms are used to install
        Replication segments on Transit, Bud and Leaf nodes.</t>

        <t>Note: Algorithms and techniques to compute the P2MP tree
        replicating nodes are out of scope of this document.</t>

        <section title="PCE-Init Procedure ">
          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>PCE is informed through its API or configuration mechanism to
              instantiate a SR P2MP Policy. PCE is configured with the Root
              and a set of Leaf nodes.</t>

              <t>PCE computes a P2MP tree from the Root node to all Leaf nodes
              which satisfy the configured constraints.</t>

              <t>PCE sends a PcInitiate message to the Root. The PcInitiate
              message is configured with a unique Instance-ID for the
              path-instance within the SR P2MP Policy. The PcInitiate message
              sent to the root MUST set the Tree-ID to 0. The endpoint-object
              MAY optionally be included in the PcInitiate message for
              providing list of Leaf nodes to the PCC for informational
              purposes.</t>

              <t>In response to the PcInitiate message, the PCC will assign
              the PLSP-ID and Tree-ID for the Candidate path. The PCC uses the
              Instance-ID defined in the PcInitiate message for the Path
              Instance contained within the Candidate Path. The PCC sends a
              PcRpt back to PCE containing the PLSP-ID, Tree-ID and
              Instance-ID. PCC MAY optionally include additional Leaf nodes
              that were also discovered by multicast procedures</t>

              <t>PCE will send a PCInitiate message to the Root, Transit and
              the Leaf nodes to download the Replication Segment information.
              These messages will utilize the CCI object to identify the p2mp
              cross connect and encode the forwarding instruction
              information.</t>

              <t>PCE then sends a PCUpdate to the Root node indicating the
              association information (Candidate path) and implicitly binds
              the Candidate path to the installed CCI information.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="PCC-Init Procedure ">
          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>Root node PCC discovers the leaf nodes via MVPN procedures or
              other mechanism</t>

              <t>Root sends a PCRpt message for SR P2MP policy to PCE
              including the Root-ID, Tree-ID, PLSP-ID, symbolic-path-name,
              association object and any leaf nodes discovered. In
              addition:</t>

              <t><list style="symbols">
                  <t>Since the instance-id is set by the PCE, the root will
                  set the instance-id to value to 0 in the RCRpt message</t>

                  <t>For the association object, root will fill the
                  association type according to the association type defined
                  in this document. The association ID SHOULD be set to value
                  1 similar to <xref
                  target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>. The
                  association source is set to the Root PCC Address.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>PCE receives the PcRpt and generates a unique Instance-ID for
              this path-instance of the candidate path and compute the P2MP
              Policy and its replication segments.<list style="symbols">
                  <t>PCE will send a PCInitiate message to the Root, Transit
                  and the Leaf nodes to download the Replication Segment
                  information. These messages will utilize the CCI object to
                  encode the forwarding instruction information.</t>

                  <t>PCE will then send a PCUpdate to the root indicating the
                  association information (Candidate path) , and implicitly
                  indicate it to bind to the latest CCI information
                  downloaded.</t>
                </list></t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="Common Procedures ">
          <t>The following procedures are the same for PCE-init or PCC-init SR
          P2MP Policy.</t>

          <section title="Replicatoin Segment Instantiation ">
            <t><list style="symbols">
                <t>PCE distributes the Replication segments for each Candidate
                path path-instance to all Transit, Bud and Leaf nodes in the
                SR P2MP Tree using a PcInitiate message.</t>

                <t><list style="symbols">
                    <t>PLSP-ID: value MUST be set to zero and will be assigned
                    by PCC.</t>

                    <t>Symbolic path name: generated by PCE, MUST be unique
                    for the each candidate path on PCC.</t>

                    <t>Root-ID: the same value of the SR P2MP Policy</t>

                    <t>Tree-ID: it is RECOMMENDED the Tree-ID be set to the
                    same Tree-ID defined on the Root node (which was assigned
                    by the Root node PCC).</t>

                    <t>Instance-ID: set to the same value of path-instance on
                    the Root.</t>
                  </list></t>

                <t>The PcInitiate message includes the EROs and utilizes the
                CCI object to encode the Replication segment forwarding
                instruction information.</t>

                <t>In response to the PcInitiate message, each Transit, Bud
                and Leaf node PCC generates a local PLSP-ID and sends a PcRpt
                to PCE informing PCE of the Replication segment state.</t>
              </list></t>
          </section>

          <section title="New Candidate Path Creation ">
            <t><list style="symbols">
                <t>Any new Candidate path for the SR P2MP Policy is downloaded
                by PCE to the Root by sending a PcInitiate message. <t>
                    <list style="symbols">
                      <t>PLSP-ID: value MUST be set to zero and will be
                      assigned by PCC.</t>

                      <t>Symbolic path name: generated by PCE, MUST be unique
                      for each candidate path on PCC.</t>

                      <t>Root-ID: the same value of the SR P2MP Policy</t>

                      <t>Tree-ID: the same value of the SR P2MP Policy</t>

                      <t>Instance-ID: value MUST be set to zero. The PCC
                      generates the Path Instance-ID of the candidate path</t>
                    </list>
                  </t></t>

                <t>The PCE distributes the necessary Replication segment for
                the Candidate path and its path-instances to the Root, Leaf
                nodes and the Transit nodes as described in section
                "Replication Segment Instantiation".</t>

                <t>Any update to the Candidate paths or Replication segments
                is performed via the PCUpd message. Association object MUST be
                present for Candidate path PCUpdate and PCRpt message. CCI
                object MUST be present in the Replication segment updates.</t>
              </list></t>
          </section>

          <section title="Adding new Leaf nodes">
            <t><list style="symbols">
                <t>New Leaf nodes may be locally configured or discovered via
                multicast protocol procedures. New Replication segments may be
                instantiated or existing one updated to reach new Leaf nodes.
                <list style="symbols">
                    <t>If the new Leaf nodes reside on routers that are part
                    of the existing SR P2MP Tree, then PCUpd is sent from PCE
                    to necessary PCCs (Leaf, Bud or Root nodes) with the
                    existing PLSP-ID, Instance-ID, Tree-ID and CC-ID.</t>

                    <t>If the new Leaf nodes are residing on routers that are
                    not part of the existing SR P2MP Tree, then a PcInitiate
                    message is sent from PCE to each new Leaf and any
                    necessary Transit nodes following section "Replication
                    Segment Instantiation".</t>
                  </list></t>
              </list></t>
          </section>

          <section title="Conveying active state and cleanup">
            <t>The active Candidate path is indicated by the PCC through the
            operational bits(Up/Active) of the LSP object in the PCRpt
            message. If a Candidate path needs to be removed, PCE sends PC
            Initiate message, setting the R-flag in the LSP object and R bit
            in the SRP-object.</t>

            <t>A Candidate path is made active based on the preference of the
            path. If the Root is programed with multiple Candidate paths from
            different sources, as an example PCE and CLI, based on its
            tie-breaking rules, if it selects the CLI path, it will send a
            report to PCE for the PCE path indicating the status of
            label-download and sets operational bit of the LSP object to UP
            and Not Active. At any instance, only one path is permitted be
            active</t>

            <t>To remove a single candidate path, PCE sends PC Initiate
            message, setting the R-flag in the LSP object and R bit in the
            SRP-object.</t>

            <t>To remove the entire P2MP-LSP, PCE needs to send PcInitiate
            remove messages for every Candidate path of the SR P2MP Policy to
            the Root and send PcInitiate remove messages for every Replication
            segment on all the PCCs in the SR P2MP Tree. The R bit in the LSP
            Object as defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>, refers to the
            removal of the LSP as identified by the SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV
            (defined in this document). An all zero (SR-P2MP-LSP-ID-TLV
            defines to remove all the state of the corresponding PLSP-ID.</t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section title="Global Optimization of the Candidate Path">
          <t>When a P2MP LSP needs to be optimized for any reason (i.e. it is
          taking a FRR tunnel or new routers are added to the network) a
          global optimization of the candidate path is possible.</t>

          <t>Each Candidate Path MAY contain two Path-Instances. The current
          unoptimized Path-Instance is the active instance and its replication
          segments are forwarding the multicast packets from the root to the
          leaves. However the second optimized Path-Instance will be setup
          with its own unique Replication Segments throughout the network,
          from the Root to the leaf nodes. These two Path-Instances MAY
          co-exist. The two Path-Instances are uniquely identified by their
          Instance-ID in the SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV (defined in this
          document).</t>

          <t>After the optimized Path-Instance has been downloaded
          successfully, PCC MUST send two reports, reporting UP of the new
          path indicating the new LSP-ID, and a second reporting the tear down
          of the old path with the R bit of the LSP Object SET with the old
          Instance-ID in the SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV. This MBB procedure will
          move the multicast PDUs to the optimized Path-Instance.</t>

          <t>The transit and leaf nodes SHOULD be able to accept traffic from
          both Path-Instances to minimize the traffic outage by the Make
          Before Break process.</t>

          <t>It is recommended for the optimized Path-Instance to be setup up
          by PCE from the leaf nodes to transit nodes and finally the root
          nodes to ensure the entire Path-Instance is programmed before the
          MBB procedure is initiated.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="local optimizatoin">
          <t>When one of the PCCs involved in the LSP lacks the capability to
          support more than one instance, the possibility of achieving global
          make before break (MBB) is not feasible. However, with knowledge of
          the PCCs' advertised capabilities, the PCE can detect this
          limitation and instead opt for local re-optimization of the
          Candidate path. In such cases, the PCE can compute the optimized LSP
          by send the PCUpd message using the existing Instance for Candidate
          path, specifically targeting the PCCs where the optimized LSP
          triggers a change in forwarding state.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="Fast Reroute">
          <t>This document identifies Facility Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures.
          Only Link Protection procedures are defined. How the Facility Path
          is computed and instantiated is outside of scope of this
          document.</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[          R
         | |
          T
          |
         ---
        |   |
        L1 L2

Figure 1: Redundant directly connected interfaces

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

          <t>As an example, in figure 1 both R and T are configured with
          replication segments. There are two interface between R and T. One
          can be used as primary and second as a bypass in case the primary
          interface is down. There can be 2 method to protect the primary
          interface.</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>The two replication segments on R and T can take advantage of
              unicast SR to connect to each other. In this case the LFA of
              unicast SR can be utilize to protect the primary interface
              between R and T.</t>

              <t>The replication segment provides protection nexthop, the
              protection nexthop can be programmed to take the alternate
              interface between R and T to protect the primary interface.</t>
            </list></t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[ 
        R---F1
        |   |
        T---F2
        |
         ---
        |   |
        L1 L2

Figure 2: Protection through alternative network path]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>As a second example, in Figure 2 R and T connected directly and
          via network F1..F2. In this example as per example 1, unicast SR can
          be used to connect the two Replication segments, including using SR
          LFA or R-LFA or TI-LFA to protect the direct link between R-T via
          F1. If no unicast SR is available within the network, the PCE
          optionally can establish a shared replication point on F1 and F2 and
          protect all path-instances that are traversing R-T via this shared
          Replication segment.</t>

          <t>In addition, Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) and implicit null
          label on the bypass path can be implemented to reduce the PCE
          programming on the merge point (MP) PCC.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="Connecting Replication Segment via Segment List">
          <t>There could be many nodes between two Replication Segments that
          do not support P2MP Policy or Replication Segment. It is possible to
          connect two non-adjacent Replication segments via a unicast SR path
          using a SID list and rely on IGP forwarding. The SID list can be
          comprised of any IGP supported segment types (ex: Binding,
          Adjacency, Node). This information is encoded via the SR-ERO
          sub-objects and ERO-attributes objects. The last segment in an
          encoding SID list MUST be a Replication segment</t>
        </section>

        <section title="Tree Deletion">
          <t>The P2MP policy and its replication segment can be delete by the
          PCC or by the PCE. to delete the P2MP policy all the Candidate paths
          associated to that P2MP policy need to be deleted. The last
          Candidate path that is being deleted, will delete the P2MP Policy
          Instance as well on the PCE or PCC.</t>

          <t>To delete Candidate paths there are two methods:</t>

          <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>The Candidate paths can be deleted by deleting all the
              path-instances associated with them and the last path-instance
              that is deleted will trigger the Candidate path to be
              deleted.</t>

              <t>The Candidate path can be deleted entirely and this will
              delete all the associated path-instances for that candidate path
              as well.</t>
            </list></t>

          <section title="PCC Initiated ">
            <t>For PCC to delete a Candidate path, Root send a PCRpt message
            with the R bit of the LSP object set and all the fields of the
            SR-P2MP- LSP-ID TLV set to 0 (indicating to remove all state and
            path-instances associated with this P2MP tunnel). The PCE in
            response sends a PcInitiate message with R bit in the SRP object
            set to all nodes along the path to indicate deletion of the
            entries. In this case the Instance-ID can be set 0 with the R bit
            set to indicate removing the entire Candidate path and all its
            path-instances.</t>

            <t>For PCC to delete a path-instance, Root send a PCRpt message
            with the R bit of the LSP object set and all the fields of the
            SR-P2MP- LSP-ID TLV set to 0 but the instance-id value (indicating
            to remove the specific path-instances associated with this P2MP
            tunnel). The PCE in response sends a PCInitiate message with R bit
            in the SRP object SET to all nodes along the path to indicate
            deletion of the entries. Note in this case the instance-id has to
            be set accordingly with the R bit set to indicate removing the
            specific path-instances. This is useful for the global
            optimization case where after downloading the optimize
            path-instance and ensuring the path-instance is operational the
            PCC removed that old path-instance.</t>
          </section>

          <section title="PCE Initiated ">
            <t>When PCE is deleting a Candidate path or a path instance it
            should delete all the replication segments of that Candidate path
            or path-instance as well before it moves to the next Candidate
            path or path instance.</t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section title="Frangmentation ">
          <t>The Fragmentation bit in the LSP object (F bit) can be used to
          indicate a fragmented PCEP message.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="PCEP Messages">
        <!---->

        <t>The objects and TLV's defined in this document can be included in
        PCRpt, PcInitiate and PCUpd messages. The inclusion of the Objects and
        TLVs differ between SR P2MP Policy and Replication segment.</t>

        <section title="SR P2MP Policy ">
          <t>The format of the PCRpt message is updated as follows:</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[ 
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
                    <state-report-list>

Where:

 <state-report-list> ::= 
      <state-report>[<state-report-list>]

 <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
                     <LSP>
                    [<association-list>]
                    [<end-point-list>]

where:

 <SRP> is defined in RFC8231

 <LSP> is defined in [RFC8231] section 5.5.1

 <association-list> ::= 
      <ASSOCIATION> [<association-list>]

 <end-point-list> ::= [<P2MP-END-POINTS>]

Where:

 <ASSOCIATION> 
        is described in this doc

 <P2MP-END-POINTS> 
        is described in this doc

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

          <t>The format of the PCUpd message is updated as follows:</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[
<PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
                    <update-request-list>

Where:

 <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>
                          [<update-request-list>]

 <update-request> ::= <SRP>
                      <LSP>
                     [<end-point-list>]

Where:

 <SRP> is defined in [RFC8231]

 <LSP> is defined in [RFC8231]section 5.5.1

 <end-point-list> ::= [<P2MP-END-POINTS>]

Where:

 <P2MP-END-POINTS> is described in this doc

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

          <t>The format of the PCInitiate message is updated as follows:</t>

          <figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
                         <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>

Where:

 <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
                             [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]

 <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
                       <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
                       <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)

 <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                       <LSP>
                                       <association-list>
                                       <end-point-list>
Where:

 <SRP> is defined in RFC8231

 <LSP> is defined in [RFC8231] in section 5.5.1

 <association-list> ::= 
             <ASSOCIATION> [<association-list>]

 <end-point-list> ::= [<P2MP-END-POINTS>]

Where:

 <ASSOCIATION> is described in this doc

 <P2MP-END-POINTS> is described in in this doc

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

        <section title="Replication Segment ">
          <t>The Replication Segment can be constructed via the following
          PCRpt, PCUpd and PCInitiate messages</t>

          <t>NOTE:</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>Replication segment does not use a association object</t>
            </list></t>

          <t>The format of the PCRpt message is updated as follows:<figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
                    <state-report-list>

Where:

 <state-report-list> ::= 
         <state-report>[<state-report-list>]

 <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
                     <LSP>
                     <CCI>
                     <intended-path>

Where:

 <SRP> is defined in [RFC8231]

 <LSP> is defined in [RFC8231] section 5.5.1

 <CCI> is defined in this doc

 <intended-path> ::= 
        ((<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)[<intended-path>])

Where:

 <PATH-ATTRIB-ERO> is defined in [draft-ietf-pce-multipath]

 <ERO> is defined in [RFC8664]

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

          <t>The format of the PCUpd message is updated as follows:</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[
<PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
                    <update-request-list>

Where:

 <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>
                          [<update-request-list>]

 <update-request> ::= <SRP>
                      <LSP>
                      <CCI>
                      <intended-path>

Where:

 <SRP> is defined in [RFC8231]

 <LSP> is defined in [RFC8231] section 5.5.1

 <CCI> is defined in this doc

 <intended-path> ::= 
       ((<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)[<intended-path>])

Where:

 <PATH-ATTRIB-ERO> is defined in [draft-ietf-pce-multipath]

 <ERO> is defined in [RFC8664]
                  
              ]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>The format of the PCInitiate message is updated as follows:</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
                         <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>

Where:

 <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
                             [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]

 <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
                        (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
                         <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)

 <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                       <LSP>
                                       [<CCI>]
                                       [<intended-path>]
Where:

 <SRP> is defined in RFC8231

 <LSP> is defined in [RFC8231] section 5.5.1

 <CCI> is defined in section 4.4.3.3

 <intended-path> ::= 
            ((<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)[<intended-path>])

Where:

 <PATH-ATTRIB-ERO> is defined in [draft-ietf-pce-multipath]

 <ERO> is defined in [RFC8664]

 <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> is as per [RFC8281].
 <attribute-list> is as per [RFC8281].

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

        <section title="Considerations ">
          <t>A SR P2MP Policy supports add, remove, and full replace of Leaf
          nodes in a message, described further in section 5.5.2 and with an
          example in section 8.1. However, a Candidate Path and Replication
          Segment MUST NOT carry delta information. Every PcRpt, PcInitiate
          and PCUpd message MUST contain the full list of the Leaf nodes, and
          Segment forwarding information that is needed to build the Candidate
          path and its Replication segments. This is necessary to ensure that
          PCE or any new PCE is in sync with the PCC.</t>

          <section title="Path Attribute Object ">
            <t>This document uses <xref target="draft-ietf-pce-multipath"/> to
            identify each out-going interface in the Replication Segment. In
            addition each out-going interface can be protected by a backup
            path. The Path Attributes Object is used to provide the relation
            between the primary path and its backup path as per draft <xref
            target="draft-ietf-pce-multipath"/>.</t>

            <t>Note: Multipath weight TLV MUST NOT be used and SHOULD be
            ignored when revived. Composite Candidate Path TLV SHOULD NOT be
            present and SHOULD BE ignored if present.</t>

            <t>When a replication segment is being updated or new out-going
            interfaces are added to a specific replication segment, the PCRpt,
            PCInitiate and PCUpd messages sent via PCEP, maintains the
            previous ERO Path IDs and generates new Path IDs for new
            instructions. The PATH IDs are maintained for each specific
            forwarding instructions until the instructions are deleted. For
            example: When the first leaf is added, the PCE will update with
            Path ID 1 to the PCC. When the second leaf is added, according to
            the path calculated, PCE might just append the existing
            instruction Path ID 1 with a new Path ID 2 to construct the new
            PCUpd message.</t>
          </section>

          <section title="CCI Object">
            <t>The Central Control Instruction (CCI) Object is used to
            identify the entire cross connect of Explicit Route Object (ERO)
            which consist of incoming Replication SID and the set of outgoing
            Interfaces and their corresponding SIDs and/or SID lists. Any
            modification to this instruction should use this CCI ID to
            identify the cross connect uniquely. Leaf nodes and their
            corresponding Path IDs can be removed from the cross connect
            identified via the CCI. The CC-ID is assigned by the PCE.</t>

            <t>The CCI Object used by the PCE to specify the controller
            instructions is defined in <xref target="RFC9050"/>. <xref
            target="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr"/> defines
            CCI object-type for SR-MPLS. This document redefines a new version
            of the SR-MPLS CCI object-type for SR P2MP Policy in upcoming
            sections.</t>
          </section>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Object Format">
      <!-- 4 -->

      <section title="Open Message Extension">
        <!-- 4.1 -->

        <t>A PCEP speaker indicates its ability to support SR P2MP Policy and
        Replication Segment during the PCEP initialization phase. Speakers
        which support SR P2MP Policy and Replication segment object MUST
        include SR-P2MP-POLICY-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN Object.</t>

        <t>This draft defines a new SR-P2MP capability TLV with type TBD</t>

        <t><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 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Type=TBD       |           Length=4              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |      Number of Instances    |       number of replication     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Flags          |           reserved              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>Type: TBD</t>

        <t>Length: 4</t>

        <t>Number of Instances 16 bits - Number of instances the advertising
        PCEP speaker supports. This is meaningful for PCEs. PCEs can determine
        the least number of instances that could be created for a SR P2MP
        policy.</t>

        <t>Number of replication 16 bits - number of out going interfaces that
        the system is capable of having per multicast state.</t>

        <t>Flags 16 bits - No Flags currently defined</t>

        <t/>

        <t>Upon the receipt of an Open message, the receiving PCEP peer MUST
        determine whether the suggested PCEP session characteristics
        (leaf-types) are acceptable. If the suggested leaf-types are not
        acceptable to the receiving peer, it MUST send an PCEP Error message
        (PCErr) with Error-Type=2 (Capability not supported) and error-value X
        (new error type assigned by IANA incompatible SR P2MP leaf types) (See
        Section 5.5.2 for leaf-types)</t>

        <t/>
      </section>

      <section title="PCE Capabliity SubTLV ">
        <t>If a PCEP speaker advertises SR P2MP Policy Capability then it MUST
        include the PST = 1 in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV as per <xref
        target="RFC8664"/></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Association Type Capability">
        <t>A Assoc-Type-List TLV as per <xref target="RFC8697"/> section 3.4
        should be send via PCEP open object with following association
        type</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[  
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| Association Type  | Association Name           | Reference        |
| Value             |                            |                  |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| TBD1              | P2MP SR Policy Association | This document    |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>OP-CONF-Assoc-RANGE (Operator-configured Association Range)should
        not be set for this association type and must be ignored.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Symbolic Name TLV">
        <t>This document reuses symbolic path name from <xref
        target="RFC8231"/> section 7.3.2. For P2MP Policy a symbolic path is
        unique for a Candidate Path of the P2MP Policy on the PCC. It is
        RECOMMENDED for the symbolic path name to be Root-ID, Tree-ID and
        Candidate path Discriminator values.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="SR P2MP Policy ">
        <section title="P2MP Policy Association Group ">
          <t>Two ASSOCIATION object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined in
          <xref target="RFC8697"/>. The ASSOCIATION object includes
          "Association type" indicating the type of the association group.
          This document adds a new Association type. Association type = TBD1
          "P2MP SR Policy Association Type" for SR Policy Association Group
          (P2MP SRPAG).</t>

          <t>For PCC-initiated SR P2MP Policy, the ASSOCIATION object is
          present in the first PCRpt message that is sent by the PCC to PCE to
          indicate the existence of the SR P2MP Policy and its Candidate path.
          This first PCRpt message does not have a corresponding PCUpdate
          message but it does include the Association object accordingly.</t>

          <t>The Association Source SHOULD be set to the root address of the
          P2MP tree.</t>

          <t>In par with <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/> section 4.2,
          P2MP policy reuses the four TLVs used in the SRPA object. P2MP
          policy also redefines the extended association ID TLV:</t>

          <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR Policy
              Name</t>

              <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV: (mandatory) encodes P2MP SR Policy
              Candidate path Identifier</t>

              <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR Policy
              Candidate path name.</t>

              <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFRENCE TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR
              Policy Candidate path preference value.</t>

              <t>In addition to above the extended association ID TLV has been
              modified to address the P2MP Policy</t>
            </list></t>

          <section title="Extended Association ID TLV">
            <t>In par with <xref
            target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/> the Extended
            Association ID TLV MUST be included and it MUST be in the
            following format for the P2MP Policy</t>

            <t><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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Type = 31            |             Length = 4        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                          TREE-ID                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
              </figure></t>

            <t>Length: 4 byte</t>

            <t>Tree-ID: identifies the P2MP Tree which the Replication segment
            is part of</t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section title="P2MP-END-POINTS Object">
          <t>In order for the Root node to indicate operations of its Leaf
          nodes (Add/Remove/Replace-all), the PcRpt and PcInit messages are
          extended to include P2MP End Point &lt;P2MP End-points&gt; Object
          which is defined in <xref target="RFC8306"/></t>

          <t>The absence of the P2MP-END-POINTS Object means that there is no
          change in the leaf endpoint of the policy and the PCEP speaker MUST
          NOT consider the absence of the object as an indication of removal
          of the endpoints.</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[   
IPV4-P2MP END-POINTS:

 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                          Leaf type                            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                     Source IPv4 address                       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                  Destination IPv4 address                     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                           ...                                 ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                  Destination IPv4 address                     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

IPV6-P2MP END-POINTS:   
 
 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                          Leaf type                            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
|                Source IPv6 address (16 bytes)                 |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
|              Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes)              |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                           ...                                 ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
|              Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes)              |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>Leaf Types (derived from <xref target="RFC8306"/> section 3.3.2)
          :</t>

          <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>New leaves to add (leaf type = 1)</t>

              <t>Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2)</t>

              <t>the entire pce leaf list is overwritten and replaced with the
              new leaf list (leaf type = 5)</t>
            </list></t>

          <t>Note a PCE speaking node MUST NOT combine leaf type 1 and 2 with
          leaf type 5.</t>

          <t>Note a PCE speaking node SHOULD NOT have the same node present in
          the leaf type 1 and 2 if both leaf types are present.</t>

          <t>A given P2MP END-POINTS object gathers the Leaf nodes of a given
          type. A SR P2MP PcRpt MAY mix different types of Leaf nodes by
          including several P2MP END-POINTS objects. The END-POINTS object
          body has a variable length. These are multiples of 4 bytes for IPv4,
          multiples of 16 bytes, plus 4 bytes, for IPv6.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="P2MP Policy and Replication Segment Identifier Object and TLV">
        <t>Both P2MP Policy and Replication Segment are identified via the LSP
        object and more precisely via the SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV</t>

        <t>The P2MP Policy uses the PLSP-ID to identify the Candidate Paths
        and the Instance-ID to identify a Path-Instance with in the Candidate
        path.</t>

        <t>A Replication Segment uses the SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV to identify and
        correlate a Replication Segment to a P2MP Policy</t>

        <t>As it was noted previously, for the Root the P2MP Policy and the
        Replication Segment is downloaded via the same PCUpd message.</t>

        <section title="Extension of the LSP Object, SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV ">
          <t>The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of <xref
          target="RFC8231"/>. It specifies the PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an
          LSP that is constant for the life time of a PCEP session. Similarly,
          for a P2MP Policy, the PLSP-ID identify a Candidate Path uniquely
          with in the P2MP policy.</t>

          <t>The LSP Object MUST include the new SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV
          (IPV4/IpV6) defined in this document below. This is a variation to
          the P2MP object defined in <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp"/></t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[
IPV4-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV:

 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=TBD            |           Length=10           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                   Root                                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                  Tree-ID                                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|         Instance-ID           | Reserved      |  Flags    |R|A|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

IPv6-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV :

 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=TBD            |           Length=22           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                  Root                                         |
+                          (16 octets)                          +
|                                                               |
+                                                               +
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             Tree-ID                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|         Instance-ID           | Reserved      |  Flags    |R|A|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>The type (16-bit) of the TLV is TBD (need allocation by
          IANA).</t>

          <t>Root: Source Router IP Address</t>

          <t>Tree-ID: Unique Identifier of this P2MP LSP on the Root.</t>

          <t>Instance-ID : Contains 32 Bit instance ID. Instance-id 0 is
          reserved.</t>

          <t>Reserved: 8 bits reserved for future use.</t>

          <t>Flags: 8 bits, A - Activate the Instance-ID, R - Remove the
          Instance-ID</t>

          <t>At any given time, only one instance MUST be active. Activating
          one instance entails deactivating all other instances, with the
          condition that the active instance MUST have a non-zero value.</t>

          <t>The (A) flag is meaningful for Root PCC and PCE. PCE MUST be
          setting (A) flag in the PCUpd containing SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID TLV for
          activating the instance. The decision regarding when to set the (A)
          flag can be made locally on the PCE. E.g., this decision can be
          based on factors such as receiving PCRpt messages from all PCCs for
          the new instance or utilizing a timer-based approach to ensure that
          the data plane is completely configured on all PCCs. It's important
          to note that determining the appropriate timing for activating the
          new instance is not within the scope of this document. After the
          activation of the P2MP Policy any PCUpd MUST include the (A) flag in
          the P2MP-Instance TLV.</t>

          <t>Root PCC MUST set the (A) flag in the PCRpt as a response to
          receiving a PCUpd message with the (A) flag set.</t>

          <t>If a PCE receives a PCRpt with the (A) flag set in response to a
          PCUpd message that did not have the (A) flag set, then PCE MUST
          treat this as an error. In such a case, PCE MUST send an PCEP Error
          message (PCErr) with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an Invalid Object)
          and error-value (X) (Invalid active instance).</t>

          <t>For Transit or Leaf PCCs, receipt of a PCUpd message with the (A)
          flag MUST be treated as an error. Transit or Leaf PCCs MUST send an
          PCEP Error message (PCErr) with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation)
          and error-value (X) (Attempted activating instance on Transit or
          leaf PCC).</t>

          <t>Figure 3 presents an example exchange of SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV.</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[
                  +-+-+                    +-+-+
                  |PCC|                    |PCE|
                  +-+-+                    +-+-+
                    |                        |
1) LSP state Report | -------- PCRpt ------> |
   With PLSP-ID and |  (SRP,                 |
   Instance ID      |   LSP (SR-P2MP-LSPID), |
                    |   P2MP-END-POINT)      |
                    |                        |
                    | <------- PCUpd ------- |2) PCUpd message sent
                    |  (SRP,                 |   to the PCC with
                    |   LSP (SR-P2MP-LSPID), |   Path info and activating
                    |   Association,         |   instance.
                    |   P2MP SR Pol. ID TLV, |                                                       
                    |   CPATH_ID TLV,        |                                                       
                    |   P2MP-END-POINT,      |                                                      
                    |   CCI, PATH_ATTRIB,    |                                                        
                    |   SR-ERO)              |
                    |                        |
                    |                        |
3) LSP State Report |---- PCRpt message ---->|
  (echoing Instance |                        |
    Active)         |                        |
                    |                        |
]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Replication Segment">
        <t>As per <xref target="RFC9524"/> a replication segment has a
        next-hop-group which MAY contain a single outgoing replication SID or
        a list of SIDs (sr-policy-sid-list) In either case there needs to be a
        replication SID identifying the replication state on a downstream
        replication node. Two replication segments can be directly connected
        or connected via a unicast SR domain.</t>

        <section title="Message format">
          <t>The format of a Replication Segment message encoding is similar
          to P2MP Policy. However, the P2MP Policy contains the association
          object and the replication segment message does not contain the
          association object. In addition, the replication segment carries the
          CCI object to identify a P2MP cross connect. The Replication segment
          is distributed individually to the Root, Transit and Leaf nodes
          without the P2MP Policy. The replication segment uses
          SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV as its identifier. The TLV is coded differently
          for shared and non-shared case</t>
        </section>

        <section title="CCI Object">
          <t>The CCI Object as defined in <xref target="RFC9050"/> is used to
          identify a forwarding instruction in the Replication Segment. A
          forwarding instruction is incoming SID and a set of outgoing
          branches.</t>

          <t>The CCI Object can be include in Reports, initiate and Update
          messages for Replication Segments.</t>

          <t>This document redefines a new version of the SR-MPLS CCI
          object-type <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr"/> for P2MP
          Policy. The label in the CCI Object is the incoming SID. The
          outgoing SIDs are defined by the ERO Objects.</t>

          <t>CCI Object-Type is TBD6 for SR P2MP Policy.</t>

          <t><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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                            CC-ID                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      MT-ID    |    Algorithm  | role  |     flags         |V|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       SID/Label/Index                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                               |
//                        Optional TLV                         //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>Flags:</t>

          <t>The V and the L flags are defined as per <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr"/></t>

          <t>The node action and role of ingress, transit, leaf or bud, is
          indicated via the 4 bit roles field</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>Head, role type = 1</t>

              <t>Transit, role type = 2</t>

              <t>Leaf, role type = 3</t>

              <t>Bud, role type = 4</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="SR-ERO Rules ">
          <t>Forwarding information of a replication segment can be configured
          and steered via many different mechanisms. RFC <xref
          target="RFC8664"/> defines the NAI types.</t>

          <t>As an example a replication SID can be steered via:</t>

          <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>Replication SID steered with an IPv4/IPv6 directly connected
              nexthop (RFC 8664 NAI type 3, 4, 6 (adjacency)) <list
                  style="symbols">
                  <t>In this case there will two SR-ERO in the ERO Object,
                  with the Replication SID SR-ERO at the bottom and the
                  IPv4/IPv6 SR-ERO on the top.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>Replication SID steered with an IPv4/IPv6 loopback address
              that reside on the directly connected router. (NAI type 1..2
              (node)) <list style="symbols">
                  <t>In this case there will two SR-ERO in the ERO Object,
                  with the Replication SID SR-ERO at the bottom and the
                  IPv4/IPv6 SR-ERO on the top.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>Replication SID steered with unnumbered IPv4/IPv6 directly
              connected Interface (NAI type 5 (adjacency unnumbered)</t>

              <t>Replication SID steered via a SR adjacency or node SID<list
                  style="symbols">
                  <t>In this case even a sid-list can be used to traffic
                  engineer the path between two Replication Segment</t>

                  <t>The Replication SID SR-ERO is at the bottom while the
                  segments describing the path are on top in order.</t>
                </list></t>
            </list></t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="IANA Consideration">
      <!-- 6 -->

      <section title="PCEP P2MP Association type">
        <t>This draft defines a new Association type for P2MP SR Policy. IANA
        is requested to allocate a new value from the existing IANA Registry
        "ASSOCIATION TYPE Field" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
        (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| Type     | Name                       | Reference       |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| TBD1     | P2MP SR Policy Association | This document   |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+

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

      <section title="Endpoint Type">
        <t><xref target="RFC8306"/> specified the P2MP END-POINTS object but
        did not create a registry for the 32-bit Leaf type field. This
        document establishes the registry and populates it with values from
        <xref target="RFC8306"/> and adds a new Leaf type. IANA is requested
        to create a new "Endpoint Leaf Types" registry with the allocation
        policy as IETF Review <xref target="RFC8126"/>. This new registry
        contains the following values:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
            +----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| Value    | Description                | Reference       |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 0        | Reserved                   | This document   |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 1        | New leaves to add          | RFC 8306        |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 2        | Old leaves to remove       | RFC 8306        |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 3        | Old leaves whose path can  | RFC 8306        |
|          | be modified/reoptimized    |                 |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 4        | Old leaves whose path must | RFC 8306        |
|          | be left unchanged          |                 |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 5        | All old leaves overwritten | This document   |
|          | and replaced with the new  |                 |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+

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

        <t>To keep it consistent with the Generalized Endpoint Types <xref
        target="RFC8779"/>, this draft defines a new Endpoint Type in the
        "Generalized Endpoint Types" registry as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
    +-----------+---------------------+-----------------+
    | Value     | Type                | Reference       |
    +-----------+---------------------+-----------------+
    | TBD2      | Point-to-Multipoint | This document   |
    |           | with leaf type 5    |                 |
    +-----------+---------------------+-----------------+

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

        <t>The Authors are requesting value 5 for this new endpoint type.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="PCEP TLV Type Indicators ">
        <t>This draft extends the PCEP OPEN object by defining a new optional
        TLV to indicate the PCE's capability to perform SR-P2MP path
        computation.</t>

        <t>Further, this draft defines two new TLVs for Identifying the P2MP
        Policy and the Replication segment with IPv4 or IPv6 root address.</t>

        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the IANA Registry
        "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+
    | TLV Type   | Description                  | Reference      |
    | Value      |                              |                |
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+
    | TBD3       | SR-P2MP-POLICY-CAPABILITY    | This document  |
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+
    | TBD4       | IPV4-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID TLV | This document  |
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+
    | TBD5       | IPV6-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID TLV | This document  |
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+

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

      <section title="New CCI Object Type">
        <t>This draft defines a new CCI Object type SR P2MP Policy.</t>

        <t>IANA is requested to allocate new codepoints in the "PCEP Objects"
        sub-registry as follows:</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
    +-------------+----------------------+----------------+
    | Object Class| Name                 | Reference      |
    | Value       |                      |                |
    +-------------+----------------------+----------------+
    | 44          | CCI Object           |                |
    |             | Object-Type          |                |
    |             | TBD6: SR P2MP Policy | This document  |
    +-------------+----------------------+----------------+

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

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <!-- 8 -->

      <t/>

      <t>The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>,
      <xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC8281"/>, <xref
      target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC8697"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/>
      and <xref target="RFC9524"/> are applicable to this specification.</t>

      <t>As per <xref target="RFC8231"/>, it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP
      extensions can only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions
      across PCEs and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority,
      using Transport Layer Security (TLS) <xref target="RFC8253"/>.</t>

      <t>No additional security measures are required for SR P2MP Policy.</t>
    </section>

    <section numbered="true" title="Manageability Considerations"
             toc="default">
      <t>All manageability requirements and considerations listed in <xref
      target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>,
      and <xref target="RFC9256"/> apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined
      in this document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in
      this section apply.</t>

      <section numbered="true" title="Control of Function and Policy"
               toc="default">
        <t>TBD</t>
      </section>

      <section numbered="true" title="Information and Data Models"
               toc="default">
        <t>TBD</t>
      </section>

      <section numbered="true" title="Liveness Detection and Monitoring"
               toc="default">
        <t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
        detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
        listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/> and <xref
        target="RFC9256"/>.</t>
      </section>

      <section numbered="true" title="Verify Correct Operations" toc="default">
        <t>Operation verification requirements already listed in <xref
        target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref
        target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/> are applicable to
        mechanisms defined in this document.</t>

        <t>An implementation MUST allow the operator to view SR P2MP Policy
        Identifier and each SR Replication segment Candidate path Identifier
        advertised in PCEP.</t>

        <t>An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the
        capabilities defined in this document.</t>

        <t>An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view each
        Replication segment Candidate path associated with specific SR P2MP
        Policy.</t>
      </section>

      <section numbered="true" title="Requirements On Other Protocols"
               toc="default">
        <t>The PCEP extensions defined in this document do not imply any new
        requirements on other protocols.</t>
      </section>

      <section numbered="true" title="Impact On Network Operations"
               toc="default">
        <t>The mechanisms defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref
        target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/> also apply to the PCEP
        extensions defined in this document.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgments">
      <!-- 9 -->

      <t>The authors would like to thank Tanmoy Kundu and Stone Andrew at
      Nokia and Tarek Saad at Cisco for their feedback and major contribution
      to this draft.</t>

      <t/>
    </section>

    <section title="Contributors">
      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[Tarek Saad
                    Cisco Systems
                    Email: tsaad.net@gmail.com

Saranya Rajarathinam
                    Saranya Rajarathinam
                    Nokia
                    Email: saranya.Rajarathinam@nokia.com
                  ]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Informative References">
      <!-- 10.2 -->

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy">
        <front>
          <title>D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang, "Segment
          Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2019"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9524">
        <front>
          <title>D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang, "SR
          Replication Segment for Multi-point Service Delivery"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp">
        <front>
          <title>M. Koldychev, S. Sivabalan, C. Barth, S. Peng, H. Bidgoli
          "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate
          Paths</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pce-multipath">
        <front>
          <title>M. Koldychev, S. Sivabalan, T. Saad, H. Bidgoli, B. Yadav, S.
          Peng, G. Mishra "PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath
          Information"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="November" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-hb-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-yang">
        <front>
          <title>H.Bidgoli, D. Yoyer, R. Parekh, T.Saad, T.kundu "YANG Data
          Model for p2mp sr policy"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp">
        <front>
          <title>U. Palle, D. Dhody, Y.Tanaka, V. Beeram "Protocol Extensions
          for Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering
          Label"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="April" year="2019"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr">
        <front>
          <title>Z. Li, S. Peng, M. negi, Q. Zhao, C. Zhau "PCEP Extensions
          for Using PCE as a PCECC for SR MPLS SID"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9256">
        <front>
          <title>C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, D. Voyer, A. Bogdanov, P. Mattes
          "Segment Routing Policy Architecture"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC6513">
        <front>
          <title>E. Rosen, R. Aggerwal "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="February" year="2012"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8306">
        <front>
          <title>Q. Zhao, D. Dhody, R. Palleti, D.King "PCEP for
          Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
          Paths"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="November" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8231">
        <front>
          <title>E. Crabbe, I. Minei, J. Medved, R. Varga "PCEP Extensions for
          Stateful PCE"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="September" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC3209">
        <front>
          <title>D. Awduche, L. Berger, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G. Swallow
          "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="December" year="2001"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8697">
        <front>
          <title>I. Minei, E. Crabbe, S. Sivabalan, H. Ananthakrishnan, D.
          Dhody, Y. Tanaka "PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships
          between Sets of LSPs"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="January" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8664">
        <front>
          <title>S. Sivabalan, C. Filsfils, J. Tantsura, W. Henderickx, J.
          Hardwick "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="December" year="2019"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8281">
        <front>
          <title>E. Crabbe, I. Minei, S. Sivabalan, R. Varga "PCEP Extensions
          for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="December" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9050">
        <front>
          <title>Z. Li, S. Peng, M. Negi, Q. Zhao, C. Zhou "PCEP Procedures
          and Extensions for Using the PCECC"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2021"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC2119">
        <front>
          <title>"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
          Levels"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="1997"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8253">
        <front>
          <title>D. Lopez, Q. Wu. D.Dhody "Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure
          Transport for the PCEP"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8779">
        <front>
          <title>C. Margaria, O. Gonzalez, F. Zhang "PCEP extensions for
          GMPLS"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8126">
        <front>
          <title>M. Cotton, B. Leiba, T. Narten "Guidelines for Writing an
          IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="June" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC7988">
        <front>
          <title>E. Rosen, K. Subramanian, Z. Zhang "Ingress Replication
          Tunnels in Multicast VPN"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2016"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC5440">
        <front>
          <title>JP. Vasseur, JL. Le Roux "Path Computation Element (PCE)
          Communication Protocol (PCEP)"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="2009"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8174">
        <front>
          <title>"Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key
          Words"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="May" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <section anchor="appendix" numbered="true" pn="section-appendix.a"
             removeInRFC="false" title="Packet Examples" toc="include">
      <section title="Report for Leaf Add">
        <t>This is an example of PCC initiated P2MP Policy. The PCC will send
        a Report message to the PCE to initiat a P2MP Policy with a set of
        leaves that are discovered via Next Generation MVPN procedures as per
        <xref target="RFC6513"/>.</t>

        <t>In addition, since the PCC is initiating the P2MP Policy, it does
        populate the PLSP-ID for the candidate path. PCC will leave the
        instance-id for the Path-Instance to 0 and the instance-id is assigned
        by the PCE.</t>

        <figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[        
 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 = 0                            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                        SRP-ID-number  = 0                     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4                   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                             | PST = TBD       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <LSP OBJECT>
|                PLSP-ID = 1            |     A:1,D:1,N:1       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           Type=17             |           Length=<var>        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                            symbolic path name                 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|             Type=TBD          |  Length                       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                   Root = A                                    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                  Tree-ID = Y                                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                        Instance-ID = 0                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                       <P2MP END POINT OBJECT>
|                          Leaf type = 5                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                     Source IPv4 address = A                   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                  Destination IPv4 address = D                 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                  Destination IPv4 address = E                 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>

      <section title="P2MP Policy Candidate path Init">
        <t>The following packet is the PCE creating the candidate path for the
        P2MP Policy and downloading the replication segment with the same
        message on the root.</t>

        <t>It should be noted combining the P2MP Policy candidate path
        creation and replication segment only is possible on the root.</t>

        <t>As such this message contains both association object and the CCI
        object. The CCI Object contains the incoming Binding SID and wraps all
        the Path Attribute messages and their corresponding EROs.</t>

        <t>The PLSP-ID are populated with the same ID as the previous PCC
        report message and the Instance-ID is assigned by the PCE.</t>

        <t>
          <figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[       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 = 0                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        SRP-ID-number  = 1                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                             | PST = TBD       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                             <LSP OBJECT>
      |                PLSP-ID = 1            |     A:1,D:1,N:1,C:0   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=17             |           Length=<var>        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            symbolic path name                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type=TBD          |  Length                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Root =A                                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Tree-ID = Y                                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Instance-ID = L1                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            <ASSOCIATION OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Reserved              |            Flags            |0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Association type= SR-P2MP-PAG |      Association ID = z       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              IPv4 Association Source = <pce-address>          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type=P2MP SR Policy ID    |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Root  = A                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           TREE-ID = 0                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Type=P2MP SR Policy Name   |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                     P2MP SR Policy Name                       ~
      |                                                               | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-path ID  |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |ProtOrigin 10  |    Reserved                                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Originator ASN                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                       Originator Address = <pce-address>      |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Discriminator = 1                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-path Name|             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~               P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path Name              ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-Path Pre |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           Preference = 100 <default>          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                              <P2MP END POINT OBJECT>
      |                          Leaf type = 5                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Source IPv4 address = A                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Destination IPv4 address = D                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Destination IPv4 address = E                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            <CCI OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            CC-ID = X                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Reserved1            |             Flags         |0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Label = 0             |     Reserved2         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       <PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flags                           | Oper|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              ERO-path Id = 1                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Backup Path Count = 1   |             Flags           |0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Backup Path ID 2                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=Node Role      |           Length=4            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Role = ingress |                 Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <ERO-OBJECT>
                         <SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>

      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 1|     Flags   |0|0|1|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                ipv4-address  = NHD1           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 0|     Flags   |0|1|0|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SID = d1                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       <PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flags                           | Oper|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              ERO-path Id = 2                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Backup Path Count = 0   |             Flags           |1|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=TBD            |           Length=4            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Role = ingress |                 Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <ERO-OBJECT>
                         <SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>

      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 1|     Flags   |0|0|1|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                ipv4-address  = NHD2           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 0|     Flags   |0|1|0|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SID = d2                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




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

      <section title="Replication segment PCE Initiated on Transit and LEaves">
        <t>The following packet examples shows the replication segment
        initiation via a PCE on transit nodes and/or leaves node.</t>

        <t>Note:</t>

        <t><list style="numbers">
            <t>This packet is generated from PCE to instantiate the
            replication segment, as such the PLSP-ID is set to zero. PCC will
            assign these value and report them back to PCE.</t>

            <t>The instance-id was assigned by the PCE for the entire
            path-instance (P2MP tree)</t>

            <t>This is a replication segment instantiation as such there is no
            association object.</t>

            <t>The LSP Object Root A and Tree-ID Y associates this replication
            segment to the corresponding Candidate path and path instance on
            the root node.</t>
          </list>there is no association object present in the packet.</t>

        <t>
          <figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[       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 = 0                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        SRP-ID-number  = 1                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                             | PST = TBD       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                             <LSP OBJECT>
      |                PLSP-ID = 0            |     A:1,D:1,N:1,C:0   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=17             |           Length=<var>        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            symbolic path name                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type=TBD          |  Length                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Root =A                                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Tree-ID = Y                                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Instance-ID = L1                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            <CCI OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            CC-ID = X                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Reserved1            |             Flags         |0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Label = d1            |     Reserved2         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       <PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flags                           | Oper|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              ERO-path Id = 1                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Backup Path Count = 1   |             Flags           |0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Backup Path ID 2                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=TBD            |           Length=4            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Role           |                 Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <ERO-OBJECT>
                         <SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>

      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 1|     Flags   |0|0|1|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                ipv4-address  = NHE1           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 0|     Flags   |0|1|0|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SID = e1                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       <PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flags                           | Oper|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              ERO-path Id = 2                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Backup Path Count = 0   |             Flags           |1|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=TBD            |           Length=4            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Role           |                 Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <ERO-OBJECT>
                         <SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>

      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 1|     Flags   |0|0|1|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                ipv4-address  = NHE2           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 0|     Flags   |0|1|0|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SID = e2                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Example Workflows ">
      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[                +-------+                             +-------+
                  |PCC    |                             |  PCE  |
                  |Root   |                             +-------+
           +------|       |                                 |
           | PCC  +-------+                                 |
           | Transit| |                                     |
    +------|        | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,SRP-ID=1--------->| PCECC LSP
    |PCC   +--------+ |   N=1,root-addr,Tree-ID=a,          | SR-Policy
    |        |  |     |   Instance-ID =0,                   | Report to
    |Leaf    |  |     |   P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)(optnl)| PCE
    +--------+  |     |   association-obj                   |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1,    | Update  
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| CP
        |       |     |   P2MP-end-points, association-obj  | 
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      association-object             |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |<---------------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Leaf
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Z,C=0,                       | Replication
        |       |     |  O=0,L=z,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  | Segment(RS)
        |       |     |                                     |
        |---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Z,Label=z,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Transit
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y,C=0,                       | RS
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  | 
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,             | Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Root
        |       |     |   CC-ID=X,C=0,                      | RS
        |       |     | O=0,L=x,P2MP-end-                   |
        |       |     |   points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
        |       |     |   ERO,SR-ERO                        |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |    CC-ID=X,Label=x,O=0,             |
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO       |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =2,    |   
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Activate
        |       |     |   P2MP-end-points                   | CP to last                   
        |       |     |                                     | RS
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =2, ->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |                                     |


]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>Note that on transit / leaf Initiate is with PLSP-ID = 0. Therefore
      PLSP-ID is locally unique to a node. It should be noted that the CC-ID
      does not need to be constant across all nodes that make up the path.</t>

      <t>PCE-Initiated workflow</t>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[                 +-------+                             +-------+
                  |PCC    |                             |  PCE  |
                  |Root   |                             +-------+
           +------|       |                                 |
           | PCC  +-------+                                 |
           | Transit| |                                     |
    +------|        | |                                     | PCECC LSP
    |PCC   +--------+ |                                     |
    |        |  |     |                                     |
    |Leaf    |  |     |                                     |
    +--------+  |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=0,             | Initiate  
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=0,Instance-ID=b,| CP
        |       |     |   P2MP-end-points, association-obj  | 
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      association-object,            |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdt,PLSP-ID=1,                 | Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Root RS
        |       |     |   CC-ID=X,C=0,                      |
        |       |     | O=0,L=x,P2MP-end-                   |
        |       |     |   points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
        |       |     |   ERO,SR-ERO                        |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |    CC-ID=X,Label=x,O=0,             |
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO       |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |<---------------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Leaf RS
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Z,C=0,                       |
        |       |     |  O=0,L=z,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Z,Label=z,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Transit RS
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y,C=0,                       |
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=c,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y,C=0,                       |
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1,    | Bind and 
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Activate
        |       |     |   P2MP-end-points,                  | CP to last                  
        |       |     |                                     | RS
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |


]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>MBB Workflow:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[Common (PCE-INIT, PCC-INIT) MBB

                 +-------+                             +-------+
                  |PCC    |                             |  PCE  |
                  |Root   |                             +-------+
           +------|       |                                 |
           | PCC  +-------+                                 |
           | Transit| |                                     |
    +------|        | |                                     | PCECC LSP
    |PCC   +--------+ |                                     |
    |        |  |     |                                     |
    |Leaf    |  |     |                                     |
    +--------+  |     |                                     |
        |<---------------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=1, -------------| Download 
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| new RS on
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Z1,C=0,                      | Leaf
        |       |     |  O=0,L=z1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Z1,Label=z1,O=0,        |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=2, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| new RS on
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y1,C=0,                      | Transit
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y1,Label=y1,O=0,        |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,             | Download 
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| new RS on
        |       |     |   CC-ID=X1,C=0,                     | Root
        |       |     | O=0,L=x1,P2MP-end-                  |
        |       |     |   points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
        |       |     |   ERO,SR-ERO                        |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |    CC-ID=X1,Label=x1,O=0,           |
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO       |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1,    | Bind and
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| Activate
,       |       |     |   P2MP-end-points,                  | CP to last                  
        |       |     |                                     | RS
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,R=1          | Remove 
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| the old RS
        |       |     |   CC-ID=X1,C=0                      | from Leaf
        |       |     | O=0,L=x1,P2MP-end-                  |
        |       |     |   points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
        |       |     |   ERO,SR-ERO                        |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, R=1--------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |    CC-ID=X1,Label=x1,O=0,           |
        |       |     |      P2MP-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO       |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=2, R=1----------| Remove the
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| old RS from
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y1,C=0,                      | Transit
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2, R=1--------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y1,Label=y1,O=0,        |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |<---------------PcInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,R=1-----------| Remove the 
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,| old RS from
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Z1,C=0,                      | Root
        |       |     |  O=0,L=z1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,R=1---------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,Tree-ID=a,Instance-ID=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Z1,Label=z1,O=0,        |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |

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

      <t/>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
<!-- generated from file C:\Users\hbidgoli\Downloads\draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-08.nroff with nroff2xml 0.1.0 by Tomek Mrugalski -->
