<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-entropy-label-position-01" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.20.0 -->
  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP for Entropy Label Positions">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for SR-MPLS Entropy Label Positions</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-entropy-label-position-01"/>
    <author fullname="Quan Xiong" initials="Q" surname="Xiong">
      <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>No.6 Huashi Park Rd</street>
          <city>Wuhan</city>
          <region>Hubei</region>
          <code>430223</code>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>xiong.quan@zte.com.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Shaofu Peng" initials="S" surname="Peng">
      <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>No.50 Software Avenue</street>
          <city>Nanjing</city>
          <region>Jiangsu</region>
          <code>210012</code>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Fengwei Qin" initials="F" surname="Qin">
      <organization>China Mobile</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>qinfengwei@chinamobile.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Junfeng Zhao" initials="J" surname="Zhao">
      <organization>CAICT</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>zhaojunfeng@caict.ac.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024"/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE</workgroup>
    <keyword/>
    <abstract>
      <t>Entropy label (EL) can be used in the SR-MPLS data plane to improve 
	 load-balancing and multiple Entropy Label Indicator (ELI)/EL pairs may
	 be inserted in the SR-MPLS label stack as per RFC8662.</t>
      <t>This document proposes a set of extensions for Path Computation Element 
	 Communication Protocol (PCEP) to configure the Entropy Label Positions (ELP) 
	 for SR-MPLS networks.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <!-- ***** MIDDLE MATTER ***** -->

  <middle>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/> describes the Path Computation Element 
    Computation Protocol (PCEP) which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) 
    and a Path Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation 
    of Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label 
    Switched Path (TE LSP). PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> 
	describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and 
	Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> describes the setup and teardown of 
    PCE-initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need 
    for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for dynamic centralized
    control of a network.</t>
      <t>Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. Segment 
	Routing can be instantiated on MPLS data plane which is referred to as 
	SR-MPLS <xref target="RFC8660" format="default"/>. SR-MPLS leverages the 
	MPLS label stack to construct the SR path. PCEP Extensions for Segment 
	Routing <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/> specifies extensions to the PCEP 
	that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate TE paths, as well as
	a PCC to request a path subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization
	criteria in SR networks.</t>
      <t>Entropy label (EL) <xref target="RFC6790" format="default"/> is a technique used in the MPLS data plane 
	to improve load-balancing. Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) can be
	immediately preceding an EL in the MPLS label stack. The idea behind the EL
	is that the ingress router computes a hash based on several fields from 
	a given packet and places the result in an additional label, named 
	"entropy label". Then, this entropy label can be used as part of the hash 
	keys used by an Label Switch Router (LSR). Using the entropy label as 
	part of the hash keys reduces the need for deep packet inspection in 
	the LSR while keeping a good level of entropy in the load-balancing.  
	When the entropy label is used, the keys used in the hashing functions 
	are still a local configuration matter and an LSR may use solely the 
	entropy label or a combination of multiple fields from the incoming packet.</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC8662" format="default"/> proposes to use entropy labels for 
	SR-MPLS networks and multiple &lt;ELI, EL&gt; pairs SHOULD be inserted 
	in the SR-MPLS label stack. The ingress node may decide the number and
    place of the ELI/ELs which need to be inserted into the label stack. 
	The Entropy Label Position (ELP) is used to indicate the positions of
	the ELI/ELs which need to be inserted into the label stack as per 
	<xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp" format="default"/>.</t>
      <t>In some cases, the controller(e.g. PCE) could be used to perform 
	the TE path computation as well as ELP information which is useful for 
	inter-domain scenarios. This document proposes a set of extensions for 
	PCEP to configure the ELP information for SR-MPLS networks.</t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Conventions used in this document</name>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <t>The terminology is defined as <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC6790" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/>
	and <xref target="RFC8662" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <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" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"/> when,
    and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Entropy Labels in SR-MPLS Scenario with PCE</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC8662" format="default"/> proposes to use entropy labels 
	for SR-MPLS networks. The Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) is defined 
	as the number of labels which means that the router will perform 
	load-balancing using the ELI/EL in <xref target="RFC8662" format="default"/> section 4.</t>
      <t>As described in <xref target="RFC8662" format="default"/> section 7.2.1, the ELRD value
	is an important consideration when inserting ELI/EL and the minimum ELRD
	must be evaluated for each node along a computed path. This necessary step 
	adds additional complexity in the ELI/EL insertion process and it may not 
	be feasible for an ingress router to compute the appropriate ERLD for each
	node in the path, since a SR-MPLS path may contain segments the ingress 
	router can resolve such as inter-domain scenarios. As the Figure 1 shown, in 
	SR-MPLS inter-domain scenario, the ingress node of the first domain could 
	not get the ERLD information of other nodes of other domains.</t>
      <figure>
        <name>Entropy Labels in SR-MPLS Inter-Domain Scenario</name>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
 

          +-----+                +-----+                 +-----+              
          |PCE-1|                |PCE-2|                 |PCE-3|            
          +--+--+                +--+--+                 +--+--+              
             |                      |                       |
    .........+..........   .........+..........    .........+...........
    .                  .   .                  .    .                   .
    .+---+       +---+ .   . +---+      +---+ .    .+---+      +----+  .
    .| A |-------| B |------ | C |------| X |-------| Y |------| Z  |  .
    .+---+       +---+ .   . +---+      +---+ .    .+---+      +----+  .
    .    SR-AS 1       .   .   SR-AS 2        .    .     SR-AS 3       .
    ....................   ....................    .....................			
	
	   ]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <t keepWithPrevious="true"/>
      <t>When computing the ELI/EL positions, the PCE MUST take into 
	consideration Maximum SID Depth (MSD) imposition. The PCEs could
	get the information of all nodes such as MSD (e.g. Base MPLS 
	Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) or ERLD-MSD) through Interior Gateway 
	Protocol (IGP) and can compute the minimum ERLD along the 
	end-to-end path. IS-IS <xref target="RFC8491" format="default"/> and OSPF <xref target="RFC8476" format="default"/> 
	provide examples of advertisement of the MSD. The ERLD value 
	can be collected via IS-IS <xref target="RFC9088" format="default"/>, and OSPF <xref target="RFC9089" format="default"/>. 
	Moreover, the PCEs also can compute the ELP information including 
	the number and the places of the ELI/ELs. Then the ingress 
	nodes MAY be required to support the capabilities of inserting 
	multiple ELI/ELs and need to advertise the capabilities to the PCEs. </t>
      <t>This document proposes the extensions for PCE to perform the 
	computation of the end-to-end path as well as the positions of 
	entropy labels in SR-MPLS networks. The ingress nodes can directly
	insert the ELI/ELs based on the positions.</t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>PCEP Extensions</name>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>The OPEN Object</name>
        <t>As defined in <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/>, PCEP speakers use SR 
   PCE Capability sub-TLV to exchange information about their SR capability
   when PST=1 in the PST List of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV carried 
   in Open object. This document defines a new flag (E-flag) for SR PCE 
   Capability sub-TLV.</t>
        <t> E (ELP Configuration is supported) : A PCE sets this flag bit
   to 1 carried in Open message to indicate that it supports the computation
   of SR path with ELP information. A PCC sets this flag to 1 to indicate 
   that it supports the capability of inserting multiple ELI/EL pairs and 
   and supports the results of SR path with ELP from PCE.</t>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV</name>
        <t>The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>.  
   This document defines a new flag (E-flag) for the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG 
   TLV carried in LSP Object as defined in <xref target="RFC9357" format="default"/>. </t>
        <t> E (Request for ELP Configuration) : If the bit is set to 1, it 
   indicates that the PCC requests PCE to compute the SR path with ELP 
   information. The PCE SHOULD set this bit to 1 to indicate that 
   the ELP information is included by PCE and encoded in the Path 
   Computation Reply (PCRep) message as per <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>. And in a stateful
   PCE model, it also CAN be carried in Path Computation Update 
   Request (PCUpd) message as per <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> or LSP Initiate Request 
   (PCInitiate) message as per <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>The SR-ERO Object</name>
        <t>SR-ERO subobject is used for SR-TE path which consists of one or more
	SIDs as defined in <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/>. This document defined 
	a new flag (E-flag) for the SR-ERO subobject.</t>
        <t> E (ELP Configuration) : If this flag is set, the PCC SHOULD
	insert &lt;ELI, EL&gt; into the position after this SR-ERO subobject, 
	otherwise it SHOULD not insert &lt;ELI, EL&gt; after this segment.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Operational Example</name>
      <t>A PCC can request the computation of SR path and a PCE may 
   respond with PCRep message. And the SR path can also be initiated 
   by PCE with PCInitiate or PCUpd message in stateful PCE mode. 
   When the E bit in LSP object is set to 1 within the message, 
   it indicates to request the ELP configuration with the SR path.
   The SR path being received by PCC encoded in SR-ERO, 
   for example, &lt;S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6&gt;, especially S3 and S6
   with E-flag set. It indicates that two &lt;ELI, EL&gt; pairs SHOULD
   be inserted into the label stack of the SR forwarding entry, 
   respectively after the label for S3 and label for S6. With EL information, 
   the label stack for SR-MPLS would be &lt;label1, label2, label3, ELI, EL, 
   label4, label5, label6, ELI, EL&gt;.</t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document defines a new E bit for entropy label, which do not 	
 	introduce any new security considerations beyond those already listed	
 	in <xref target="RFC9357" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8662" format="default"/> 
	and <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New SR PCE Capability Flag Registry</name>
        <t>SR PCE Capability TLV is defined in <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/>,
    and the registry to manage the Flag field of the SR PCE Capability
    TLV is requested in <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/>. IANA is requested to 
    make allocations from the registry, as follows: </t>
        <table anchor="table1" align="center">
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="center"> Value </th>
              <th align="center"> Name </th>
              <th align="center"> Reference </th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="center"> TBD1 </td>
              <td align="center"> ELP Configuration is supported (E) </td>
              <td align="center">[this document] </td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG Flag Registry</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC9357" format="default"/> defines the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV.
	IANA is requested to make allocations from the Flag field registry, as follows: </t>
        <table anchor="table2" align="center">
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="center"> Value </th>
              <th align="center"> Name </th>
              <th align="center"> Reference </th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="center"> TBD2 </td>
              <td align="center"> Request for ELP Configuration (E) </td>
              <td align="center">[this document] </td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New SR-ERO Flag Registry</name>
        <t>SR-ERO subobject is defined in <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/>,
    and the registry to manage the Flag field of SR-ERO is requested 
	in <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"/>. IANA is requested to make 
	allocations from the registry, as follows: </t>
        <table anchor="table3" align="center">
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="center"> Value </th>
              <th align="center"> Name </th>
              <th align="center"> Reference </th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="center"> TBD3 </td>
              <td align="center"> ELP Configuration (E) </td>
              <td align="center">[this document] </td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>The authors would like to thank Stephane Litkowski, Dhruv Dhody,
	Tarek Saad, Zhenbin Li, Jeff Tantsura, Andrew Stone, Xuesong Geng, 
	Ran Chen, Gyan Mishra, Weiqiang Cheng and Samuel Sidor for their review, 
	suggestions and comments to this document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5440" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <date month="March" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5440"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8231" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8231.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE</title>
            <author fullname="E. Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe"/>
            <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
            <author fullname="J. Medved" initials="J." surname="Medved"/>
            <author fullname="R. Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga"/>
            <date month="September" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t>
              <t>Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8231"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8231"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8281" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8281.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model</title>
            <author fullname="E. Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe"/>
            <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="R. Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga"/>
            <date month="December" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t>
              <t>The extensions for stateful PCE provide active control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE. This document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8281"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8281"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6790" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6790.xml">
          <front>
            <title>The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding</title>
            <author fullname="K. Kompella" initials="K." surname="Kompella"/>
            <author fullname="J. Drake" initials="J." surname="Drake"/>
            <author fullname="S. Amante" initials="S." surname="Amante"/>
            <author fullname="W. Henderickx" initials="W." surname="Henderickx"/>
            <author fullname="L. Yong" initials="L." surname="Yong"/>
            <date month="November" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Load balancing is a powerful tool for engineering traffic across a network. This memo suggests ways of improving load balancing across MPLS networks using the concept of "entropy labels". It defines the concept, describes why entropy labels are useful, enumerates properties of entropy labels that allow maximal benefit, and shows how they can be signaled and used for various applications. This document updates RFCs 3031, 3107, 3209, and 5036. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6790"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6790"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8660" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8660.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane</title>
            <author fullname="A. Bashandy" initials="A." role="editor" surname="Bashandy"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="S. Previdi" initials="S." surname="Previdi"/>
            <author fullname="B. Decraene" initials="B." surname="Decraene"/>
            <author fullname="S. Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski"/>
            <author fullname="R. Shakir" initials="R." surname="Shakir"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. In the MPLS data plane, the SR header is instantiated through a label stack. This document specifies the forwarding behavior to allow instantiating SR over the MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8660"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8660"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8664" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8664.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <author fullname="W. Henderickx" initials="W." surname="Henderickx"/>
            <author fullname="J. Hardwick" initials="J." surname="Hardwick"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by link-state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). An SR path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), an explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 8408.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8664"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8664"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8662" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8662.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Entropy Label for Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Kini" initials="S." surname="Kini"/>
            <author fullname="K. Kompella" initials="K." surname="Kompella"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="S. Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski"/>
            <author fullname="R. Shakir" initials="R." surname="Shakir"/>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called segments. Segment Routing can be applied to the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy labels (ELs) are used in MPLS to improve load-balancing. This document examines and describes how ELs are to be applied to Segment Routing MPLS.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8662"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8662"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8476" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8476.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF</title>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <author fullname="U. Chunduri" initials="U." surname="Chunduri"/>
            <author fullname="S. Aldrin" initials="S." surname="Aldrin"/>
            <author fullname="P. Psenak" initials="P." surname="Psenak"/>
            <date month="December" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines a way for an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) router to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be supported in a given network. This document only refers to the Signaling MSD as defined in RFC 8491, but it defines an encoding that can support other MSD types. Here, the term "OSPF" means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8476"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8476"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8491" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8491.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS</title>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <author fullname="U. Chunduri" initials="U." surname="Chunduri"/>
            <author fullname="S. Aldrin" initials="S." surname="Aldrin"/>
            <author fullname="L. Ginsberg" initials="L." surname="Ginsberg"/>
            <date month="November" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines a way for an Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) router to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to determine whether a particular Segment ID (SID) stack can be supported in a given network. This document only defines one type of MSD: Base MPLS Imposition. However, it defines an encoding that can support other MSD types. This document focuses on MSD use in a network that is Segment Routing (SR) enabled, but MSD may also be useful when SR is not enabled.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8491"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8491"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9088" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9088" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9088.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS</title>
            <author fullname="X. Xu" initials="X." surname="Xu"/>
            <author fullname="S. Kini" initials="S." surname="Kini"/>
            <author fullname="P. Psenak" initials="P." surname="Psenak"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="S. Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski"/>
            <author fullname="M. Bocci" initials="M." surname="Bocci"/>
            <date month="August" year="2021"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load-balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that LSP. In addition, it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using IS-IS and Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9088"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9088"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9089" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9089" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9089.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF</title>
            <author fullname="X. Xu" initials="X." surname="Xu"/>
            <author fullname="S. Kini" initials="S." surname="Kini"/>
            <author fullname="P. Psenak" initials="P." surname="Psenak"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="S. Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski"/>
            <author fullname="M. Bocci" initials="M." surname="Bocci"/>
            <date month="August" year="2021"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load-balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that LSP. In addition, it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, and Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9089"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9089"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9357" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9357" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9357.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE</title>
            <author fullname="Q. Xiong" initials="Q." surname="Xiong"/>
            <date month="February" year="2023"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the extensions is the LSP object, which includes a Flag field with a length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already been assigned.</t>
              <t>This document defines a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object for an extended Flag field.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9357"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9357"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-01" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml-ids/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp.xml">
          <front>
            <title>BGP Extension for SR-MPLS Entropy Label Position</title>
            <author fullname="Yao Liu" initials="Y." surname="Liu">
              <organization>ZTE</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Shaofu Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng">
              <organization>ZTE</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="5" month="February" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document proposes extensions for BGP to indicate the entropy label position in the SR-MPLS label stack when delivering SR Policy via BGP.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-01"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
