<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.18 (Ruby 3.0.2) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-zzd-idr-sr-policy-scheduling-05" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.23.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP SR Policy Scheduling">BGP SR Policy Extensions for Path Scheduling</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-zzd-idr-sr-policy-scheduling-05"/>
    <author initials="L." surname="Zhang" fullname="Li Zhang" role="editor">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Beiqing Road</street>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>zhangli344@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="T." surname="Zhou" fullname="Tianran Zhou">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <email>zhoutianran@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="J." surname="Dong" fullname="Jie Dong">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <email>jie.dong@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="M." surname="Wang" fullname="Minxue Wang">
      <organization>China Mobile</organization>
      <address>
        <email>wangminxue@chinamobile.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="N." surname="Nzima" fullname="Nkosinathi Nzima">
      <organization>MTN</organization>
      <address>
        <email>Nkosinathi.Nzima@mtn.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="August" day="29"/>
    <area>General</area>
    <workgroup>IDR</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 53?>

<t>Segment Routing (SR) policy enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering. However, more and more cases require path scheduling to improve the network availability and resource utilization.</t>
      <t>This document proposes extensions to BGP SR Policy to indicate the scheduling time of each candidate path(segment list) and its associated attributes.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 58?>

<section anchor="intro">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Segment Routing (SR) policy <xref target="RFC9256"/> is a set of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment lists and necessary path attributes. It enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering. <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy"/> specifies how BGP may be used to distribute SR Policy candidate paths. It introduces a BGP SAFI with new NLRI to advertise a candidate path of a Segment Routing (SR) Policy.</t>
      <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-tvr-use-cases"/> introduces a set of use cases where the topology of the network changes predictably. The topology change may cause some of the paths invalid, and lead to path reselection or even recalculation. However, the reselection or recalculation takes a period of time, which will affect packet forwarding and cause problems such as packet disorder and packet loss. Therefor, some actions should be token to requece the impact of predicted topology changes.</t>
      <t>In the scenario of SR-policy-based TE paths, the resource allocation efficiency is a big challenge. Some flows just last for a short time, but the TE paths resources for the flows are usually reserved for a long time and can not be used by other services.</t>
      <t>In order to solve these problesm, this document proposes extensions to BGP SR Policy to indicate the scheduling time of each candidate path(segment list) and its associated attributes. The policy originator can deliver multiple paths with different valid time to the headend. The headend determines the current valid paths based on the arrival time of the packet and forwards along the path.</t>
      <section anchor="requirements-language">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" 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>
        <?line -18?>

</section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="motivation">
      <name>Motivation</name>
      <t>This section describes the use cases that may benefit from scheduled paths.</t>
      <section anchor="time-variant-network-use-case">
        <name>Time Variant Network Use Case</name>
        <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-tvr-use-cases"/> introduces the time variant network use cases, the tidal network is one of the typical time variant network scenarios. In the tidal network, in which the traffic volume varies greatly at different time.</t>
        <t>In the tidal network, some links and nodes are shutdown when the traffic at a low level. In this case, the availability of nodes and links will affect the forwarding path of traffic, the packet loss will occur if the headend can’t react to these changes in time. Therefore, the scheduling time information of each candidate path or segment list can be added to the SR Policy to describe the valid period. The ingress node doesn’t need to wait for the advertisement of topology change and just changes the forwarding path based on the valid time of each path, the affection of topology change is minimized.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="resource-utilization-efficiency-use-case">
        <name>Resource utilization efficiency use case</name>
        <t>Traditionally, the usage and allocation of network resources, especially bandwidth, can be supported by a Network Management System (NMS) operation such as path pre-establishment. However, this may not provide efficient usage of network resources. The established paths may reserve the resources for a long time. During this period, the resources cannot be used by other services even when they are not used for transporting any service.</t>
        <t>In the scenario of SR-policy-based TE path, the resource allocation efficiency is also a problem. Some flows just last for a short period of time, but the TE paths resources for the flows are usually reserved for a long time and cannot be used by other services. Therefore, the scheduling time information of each candidate path or segment list can be added to the SR Policy to describe the valid(invalid) period. When the TE path is invalid, the ingress node does not steer any packets to the path and releases the resources. Furthermore, the controller can use the resource released by the flow to plan TE paths for other flows that do not have overlap time, which can effectively improve the utilization of network resources.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="scheduling-time-information-in-sr-policy">
      <name>Scheduling Time Information in SR Policy</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC8934"/> extends the stateful PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable Label Switched Path (LSP) path computation, activation, setup, and deletion based on scheduled time intervals for the LSP and the actual network resource usage in a centralized network environment so as to improve the resource utilization efficiency. Similar with <xref target="RFC8934"/>, this document extends the SR Policy to enable paths scheduling.</t>
      <t>The NLRI defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy"/> contains the SR Policy candidate path. The content of the SR Policy Candidate Path is encoded in the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute defined in <xref target="RFC9012"/> using a new Tunnel-Type called SR Policy Type with codepoint 15. The SR Policy encoding structure is as follows:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
      Attributes:
         Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy (15)
                Binding SID
                SRv6 Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Policy Candidate Path Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                ...
]]></artwork>
      <t>A candidate path includes multiple SR paths, each of which is specified by a segment list. The Scheduling time information can be applied to the candidate path, to indicate the valid time for each candidate path and its associated attributes.
The new SR Policy encoding structure is expressed as below:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
      Attributes:
         Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy (15)
                Binding SID
                SRv6 Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Policy Candidate Path Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Scheduling Time Information
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                ...
]]></artwork>
      <t>The Scheduling time information also can be applied to each segment list to indicate the valid time for each segment list and its associated attributes. 
The new SR Policy encoding structure is expressed as below:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
      Attributes:
         Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy (15)
                Binding SID
                SRv6 Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Policy Candidate Path Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    Scheduling Time Information
                    Weight
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                ...
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <section anchor="scheduling-time-information-sub-tlv">
      <name>Scheduling Time Information Sub-TLV</name>
      <t>The Scheduling time information sub-TLV indicates one or more valid time slot for one or more SR paths. The format of Scheduling time information sub-TLV is shown as follows:</t>
      <figure anchor="ref-to-fig1">
        <name>Scheduling Time Information Sub-TL</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Type      |     Length    |   Reserved    |Schedule Number| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
/                        Schedules                              /
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>Type: TBD1</t>
      <t>Length: the size of the value field in octets.</t>
      <t>Schedule Number: indicates the number of schedules.</t>
      <t>Schedules: one or more schedules, each schedule indicates the duration when the candidate path(segment list) is active. The format of each schedule is shown as follows:</t>
      <figure anchor="ref-to-fig2">
        <name>Schedule of SR Policy</name>
        <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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Schedule-id  |   Flags   |P|S|           Reserved            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                          Start Time                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                          Start Time                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      End Time (Duration)                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      End Time (Duration)                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                     Frequency (Optional)                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                   Recurrence count(Optional)                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>Schedule-id: 8-bit value, the unique identifier to distinguish each schedule within a SR Policy, this value is allocated by the SR Policy generator.</t>
      <t>Flags: 8 bits, currently only 2 bits are used, the other bits are reserved.</t>
      <t>P (Period format): one-bit flag to indicate the format of a period. if P=1, then the period is described by a start time filed and an end time field; If P =0, then the period is described by a start time field and a duration time field.</t>
      <t>S (Schedule type): one-bit flag to indicate the type of a schedule. If S=0, it indicates the schedule only has one instance, the Frequency and Recurrence count field should not be included in the sub-TLV; If S=1, it indicates the schedule has multiple instances, the Frequency and Recurrence count field should be included.</t>
      <t>Start Time: 64-bit value, the number of seconds since the epoch, it indicates when the candidate path (segment list) and its associated attributes start to take effect.</t>
      <t>End Time (Duration): 64-bit value, if the flag P=1, then it is the number of seconds since the epoch, it indicates when the candidate path (segment list) and its associated attributes becomes ineffective. If the flag P=0, then it is the number of seconds since the Start Time, it indicates how long the candidate path (segment list) and its associated attributes are effective.</t>
      <t>Frequency(optional): 32-bit value, it is the numbers of seconds since the Start Time of an instance to the Start Time of next instance. This field indicates the recurrence frequency for all the instance of this schedule. This field should not be included if S=0.</t>
      <t>Recurrence Count(optional): 32-bit value, it indicates the number of occurrences. For example, if it is set to 2, then the schedule will repeat twice with the specified Frequency. This field should not be included if P=0.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="procedures">
      <name>Procedures</name>
      <t>When a SR Policy head node receives a SR Policy with scheduling time information, the head node will parse the SR Policy and save the scheduling time information locally. When a data packet arrives, the head node will steer it to a specific SR Policy by color or other means.</t>
      <t>Within a specific SR Policy, there are two ways for the head node to determine the final forwarding SR path:</t>
      <t>Option 1: A valid SR path is dynamically determined based on the packet arrival time whenever a packet arrives.</t>
      <t>Option 2: One or more valid paths are selected for the SR policy and one or more timers are set based on the path disable time. When the timer expires, packets steered to this SR policy are switched to another path.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>These extensions to BGP SR Policy do not add any new security issues to the existing protocol.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document defines two new sub-TLV in the registry "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" to be assigned by IANA:</t>
      <table>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Value</th>
            <th align="left">Description</th>
            <th align="left">Reference</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">TBD1</td>
            <td align="left">Scheduling Time Information (STI) sub-TLV</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC9256" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9256.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Policy Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="K. Talaulikar" initials="K." role="editor" surname="Talaulikar"/>
            <author fullname="D. Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer"/>
            <author fullname="A. Bogdanov" initials="A." surname="Bogdanov"/>
            <author fullname="P. Mattes" initials="P." surname="Mattes"/>
            <date month="July" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source routing. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend node. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9256"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9256"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP</title>
            <author fullname="Stefano Previdi" initials="S." surname="Previdi">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Ketan Talaulikar" initials="K." surname="Talaulikar">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Paul Mattes" initials="P." surname="Mattes">
              <organization>Microsoft</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Dhanendra Jain" initials="D." surname="Jain">
              <organization>Google</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="23" month="October" year="2023"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document introduces a BGP SAFI with two NLRIs to advertise a candidate path of a Segment Routing (SR) Policy. An SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. An SR Policy consists of one or more candidate paths, each consisting of one or more segment lists. A headend may be provisioned with candidate paths for an SR Policy via several different mechanisms, e.g., CLI, NETCONF, PCEP, or BGP. This document specifies how BGP may be used to distribute SR Policy candidate paths. It defines sub-TLVs for the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for signaling information about these candidate paths. This documents updates RFC9012 with extensions to the Color Extended Community to support additional steering modes over SR Policy.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-26"/>
        </reference>
        <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="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>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-tvr-use-cases" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases-09" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-tvr-use-cases.xml">
          <front>
            <title>TVR (Time-Variant Routing) Use Cases</title>
            <author fullname="Edward J. Birrane" initials="E. J." surname="Birrane">
              <organization>JHU/APL</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Nicolas Kuhn" initials="N." surname="Kuhn">
              <organization>Thales Alenia Space</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Yingzhen Qu" initials="Y." surname="Qu">
              <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rick Taylor" initials="R." surname="Taylor">
              <organization>Ori Industries</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Li Zhang" initials="L." surname="Zhang">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="29" month="February" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document introduces use cases where Time-Variant Routing (TVR) computations (i.e. routing computations taking into considerations time-based or scheduled changes to a network) could improve routing protocol convergence and/or network performance.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases-09"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8934" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8934" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8934.xml">
          <front>
            <title>PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Label Switched Path (LSP) Scheduling with Stateful PCE</title>
            <author fullname="H. Chen" initials="H." role="editor" surname="Chen"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Zhuang" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Zhuang"/>
            <author fullname="Q. Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu"/>
            <author fullname="D. Ceccarelli" initials="D." surname="Ceccarelli"/>
            <date month="October" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines a set of extensions to the stateful PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable Label Switched Path (LSP) path computation, activation, setup, and deletion based on scheduled time intervals for the LSP and the actual network resource usage in a centralized network environment, as stated in RFC 8413.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8934"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8934"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9012" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9012.xml">
          <front>
            <title>The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute</title>
            <author fullname="K. Patel" initials="K." surname="Patel"/>
            <author fullname="G. Van de Velde" initials="G." surname="Van de Velde"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sangli" initials="S." surname="Sangli"/>
            <author fullname="J. Scudder" initials="J." surname="Scudder"/>
            <date month="April" year="2021"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines a BGP path attribute known as the "Tunnel Encapsulation attribute", which can be used with BGP UPDATEs of various Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFIs) to provide information needed to create tunnels and their corresponding encapsulation headers. It provides encodings for a number of tunnel types, along with procedures for choosing between alternate tunnels and routing packets into tunnels.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 5512, which provided an earlier definition of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute. RFC 5512 was never deployed in production. Since RFC 5566 relies on RFC 5512, it is likewise obsoleted. This document updates RFC 5640 by indicating that the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV may be included in any Tunnel Encapsulation attribute where load balancing is desired.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9012"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9012"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 268?>



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

</rfc>
