rfc9830.original		rfc9830.txt
	Network Working Group S. Previdi		Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Previdi
	Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies		Request for Comments: 9830 Huawei Technologies
	Updates: 9012 (if approved) C. Filsfils		Updates: 9012 C. Filsfils
	Intended status: Standards Track K. Talaulikar, Ed.		Category: Standards Track K. Talaulikar, Ed.
	Expires: 10 August 2025 Cisco Systems		ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
	P. Mattes		P. Mattes
	Microsoft		Microsoft
	D. Jain		D. Jain
	Google		Google
	6 February 2025		July 2025
	Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP		Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP
	draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-13
	Abstract		Abstract
	A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of segments (also		A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of segments (also
	referred to as instructions) that define a source-routed policy. An		referred to as "instructions") that define a source-routed policy.
	SR Policy consists of one or more candidate paths, each comprising		An SR Policy consists of one or more candidate paths, each comprising
	one or more segment lists. A headend can be provisioned with these		one or more segment lists. A headend can be provisioned with these
	candidate paths using various mechanisms, such as CLI, NETCONF, PCEP,		candidate paths using various mechanisms such as Command-Line
	or BGP.		Interface (CLI), Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), Path
			Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), or BGP.
	This document specifies how BGP can be used to distribute SR Policy		This document specifies how BGP can be used to distribute SR Policy
	candidate paths. It introduces a BGP SAFI for advertising a		candidate paths. It introduces a BGP SAFI for advertising a
	candidate path of an SR Policy and defines sub-TLVs for the Tunnel		candidate path of an SR Policy and defines sub-TLVs for the Tunnel
	Encapsulation Attribute to signal information related to these		Encapsulation Attribute to signal information related to these
	candidate paths.		candidate paths.
	Furthermore, this document updates RFC9012 by extending the Color		Furthermore, this document updates RFC 9012 by extending the Color
	Extended Community to support additional steering modes over SR		Extended Community to support additional steering modes over SR
	Policy.		Policy.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This is an Internet Standards Track document.
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		received public review and has been approved for publication by the
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
			Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9830.
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 August 2025.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
	provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.		Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
			in the Revised BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction
	1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		1.1. Requirements Language
	2. SR Policy Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2. SR Policy Encoding
	2.1. SR Policy SAFI and NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.1. SR Policy SAFI and NLRI
	2.2. SR Policy and Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . 8		2.2. SR Policy and Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
	2.3. Applicability of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute		2.3. Applicability of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
	Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.4. SR Policy Sub-TLVs
	2.4. SR Policy Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.4.1. Preference Sub-TLV
	2.4.1. Preference Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		2.4.2. Binding SID Sub-TLV
	2.4.2. Binding SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		2.4.3. SRv6 Binding SID Sub-TLV
	2.4.3. SRv6 Binding SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		2.4.4. Segment List Sub-TLV
	2.4.4. Segment List Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		2.4.5. Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV
	2.4.5. Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 21		2.4.6. Policy Priority Sub-TLV
	2.4.6. Policy Priority Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		2.4.7. Policy Candidate Path Name Sub-TLV
	2.4.7. Policy Candidate Path Name Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 23		2.4.8. Policy Name Sub-TLV
	2.4.8. Policy Name Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		3. Color Extended Community
	3. Color Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		4. SR Policy Operations
	4. SR Policy Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		4.1. Advertisement of SR Policies
	4.1. Advertisement of SR Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		4.2. Reception of an SR Policy NLRI
	4.2. Reception of an SR Policy NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		4.2.1. Validation of an SR Policy NLRI
	4.2.1. Validation of an SR Policy NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . 28		4.2.2. Eligibility for Local Use of an SR Policy NLRI
	4.2.2. Eligibility for Local Use of an SR Policy NLRI . . . 28		4.2.3. Propagation of an SR Policy
	4.2.3. Propagation of an SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		5. Error Handling and Fault Management
	5. Error Handling and Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		6. IANA Considerations
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		6.1. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters
	6.1. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI)		6.2. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types
	Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		6.3. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
	6.2. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types . . . . . 31		6.4. Color Extended Community Flags
	6.3. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs . . . . . . . 32		6.5. SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs
	6.4. Color Extended Community Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		6.6. SR Policy Binding SID Flags
	6.5. SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		6.7. SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags
	6.6. SR Policy Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		6.8. SR Policy Segment Flags
	6.7. SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		6.9. Color Extended Community Color-Only Types
	6.8. SR Policy Segment Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		6.10. SR Policy ENLP Values
	6.9. Color Extended Community Color-Only Types . . . . . . . . 34		7. Security Considerations
	6.10. SR Policy ENLP Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35		8. Manageability Considerations
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35		9. References
	8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36		9.1. Normative References
	9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36		9.2. Informative References
	10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37		Acknowledgments
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38		Contributors
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38		Authors' Addresses
	11.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] allows a headend node to steer a		Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] allows a headend node to steer a
	packet flow along a specific path. Intermediate per-path states are		packet flow along a specific path. Intermediate per-path states are
	eliminated thanks to source routing.		eliminated thanks to source routing.
	The headend node is said to steer a flow into an SR Policy [RFC9256].		The headend node is said to steer a flow into an SR Policy [RFC9256].
	The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of		The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of
	segments associated with that SR Policy.		segments associated with that SR Policy.
	[RFC9256] further details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into		[RFC9256] further details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into
	an SR Policy. These apply equally to the SR-MPLS and Segment Routing		an SR Policy. These apply equally to the SR-MPLS and Segment Routing
	for IPv6 (SRv6) data-plane instantiations of Segment Routing using		for IPv6 (SRv6) data plane instantiations of Segment Routing using
	SR-MPLS and SRv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs) as described in		SR-MPLS and SRv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs) as described in
	[RFC8402]. [RFC8660] describes the representation and processing of		[RFC8402]. [RFC8660] describes the representation and processing of
	this ordered list of segments as an MPLS label stack for SR-MPLS.		this ordered list of segments as an MPLS label stack for SR-MPLS.
	While [RFC8754] and [RFC8986] describe the same for SRv6 with the use		[RFC8754] and [RFC8986] describe the same for SRv6 with the use of
	of the Segment Routing Header (SRH).		the Segment Routing Header (SRH).
	The SR Policy related functionality described in [RFC9256] can be		The functionality related to SR Policy described in [RFC9256] can be
	conceptually viewed as being incorporated in an SR Policy Module		conceptually viewed as being incorporated in an SR Policy Module
	(SRPM). Following is a reminder of the high-level functionality of		(SRPM). The following is a reminder of the high-level functionality
	SRPM:		of SRPM:
	* Learning multiple candidate paths (CP) for an SR Policy via		* Learning multiple candidate paths (CPs) for an SR Policy via
	various mechanisms (CLI, NETCONF, PCEP, or BGP).		various mechanisms (CLI, NETCONF, PCEP, or BGP).
	* Selection of the best candidate path for an SR Policy.		* Selection of the best candidate path for an SR Policy.
	* Associating a Binding SID (BSID) to the selected candidate path of		* Associating a Binding SID (BSID) to the selected candidate path of
	an SR Policy.		an SR Policy.
	* Installation of the selected candidate path and its BSID in the		* Installation of the selected candidate path and its BSID in the
	forwarding plane.		forwarding plane.
	This document specifies the use of BGP to distribute one or more of		This document specifies the use of BGP to distribute one or more of
	the candidate paths of an SR Policy to the headend of that policy.		the candidate paths of an SR Policy to the headend of that SR Policy.
	The document describes the functionality provided by BGP and, as		The document describes the functionality provided by BGP and, as
	appropriate, provides references for the functionality which is		appropriate, provides references for the functionality, which is
	outside the scope of BGP (i.e. resides within SRPM on the headend		outside the scope of BGP (i.e., resides within SRPM on the headend
	node).		node).
	This document specifies a way of representing SR Policy candidate		This document specifies a way of representing SR Policy candidate
	paths in BGP UPDATE messages. BGP can then be used to propagate the		paths in BGP UPDATE messages. BGP can then be used to propagate the
	SR Policy candidate paths to the headend nodes in a network. The		SR Policy candidate paths to the headend nodes in a network. The
	usual BGP rules for BGP propagation and best-path selection are used.		usual BGP rules for BGP propagation and best-path selection are used.
	At the headend of a specific policy, this will result in one or more		At the headend of a specific policy, this will result in one or more
	candidate paths being installed into the "BGP table". These paths		candidate paths being installed into the "BGP table". These paths
	are then passed to the SRPM. The SRPM may compare them to candidate		are then passed to the SRPM. The SRPM may compare them to candidate
	paths learned via other mechanisms and will choose one or more paths		paths learned via other mechanisms and will choose one or more paths
	to be installed in the data plane. BGP itself does not install SR		to be installed in the data plane. BGP itself does not install SR
	Policy candidate paths into the data plane.		Policy candidate paths into the data plane.
	This document introduces a BGP subsequent address family (SAFI) for		This document introduces a BGP Subsequent Address Family Identifier
	IPv4 and IPv6 address families. In UPDATE messages of those AFI/		(SAFI) for IPv4 and IPv6 address families. In UPDATE messages of
	SAFIs, the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) identifies		those AFI/SAFIs, the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI)
	an SR Policy Candidate Path while the attributes encode the segment		identifies an SR Policy Candidate Path while the attributes encode
	lists and other details of that SR Policy Candidate Path.		the segment lists and other details of that SR Policy Candidate Path.
	While for simplicity the text in this document states that BGP		While, for simplicity, the text in this document states that BGP
	advertises an SR Policy, it is to be understood that BGP advertises a		advertises an SR Policy, it is to be understood that BGP advertises a
	candidate path of an SR policy and that this SR Policy might have		candidate path of an SR policy and that this SR Policy might have
	several other candidate paths provided via BGP (via an NLRI with a		several other candidate paths provided via BGP (via an NLRI with a
	different distinguisher as defined in Section 2.1), PCEP, NETCONF, or		different distinguisher as defined in Section 2.1), PCEP, NETCONF, or
	local policy configuration.		local policy configuration.
	Typically, a SR Policy Controller [RFC9256] defines the set of		Typically, an SR Policy Controller [RFC9256] defines the set of
	policies and advertises them to policy headend routers (typically		policies and advertises them to policy headend routers (typically
	ingress routers). These policy advertisements use the BGP extensions		ingress routers). These policy advertisements use the BGP extensions
	defined in this document. In most cases, the policy advertisement is		defined in this document. In most cases, the policy advertisement is
	tailored for a specific policy headend; consequently, it may be		tailored for a specific policy headend; consequently, it may be
	transmitted over a direct BGP session (i.e., without intermediate BGP		transmitted over a direct BGP session (i.e., without intermediate BGP
	hops) to that headend and is not propagated any further. In such		hops) to that headend and is not propagated any further. In such
	cases, the policy advertisements will not traverse any Route		cases, the policy advertisements will not traverse any Route
	Reflector (RR, [RFC4456]) (see Section 4.2.3).		Reflector (RR) (see [RFC4456] and Section 4.2.3).
	Alternatively, a BGP egress router may advertise SR Policies that		Alternatively, a BGP egress router may advertise SR Policies that
	represent paths terminating on itself. In such cases, the router can		represent paths terminating on itself. In such cases, the router can
	send these policies directly to each headend over a dedicated BGP		send these policies directly to each headend over a dedicated BGP
	session, without necessitating any further propagation of the policy.		session, without necessitating any further propagation of the policy.
	In some situations, it is undesirable for a controller or BGP egress		In some situations, it is undesirable for a controller or BGP egress
	router to have a BGP session to each policy headend. In these		router to have a BGP session to each policy headend. In these
	situations, BGP Route Reflectors may be used to propagate the		situations, BGP Route Reflectors may be used to propagate the
	advertisements. In certain other deployments, it may be necessary		advertisements. In certain other deployments, it may be necessary
	for the advertisement to propagate through a sequence of one or more		for the advertisement to propagate through a sequence of one or more
	ASes within an SR Domain (refer to Section 7 for the associated		Autonomous Systems (ASes) within an SR Domain (refer to Section 7 for
	security considerations). To make this possible, an attribute needs		the associated security considerations). To make this possible, an
	to be attached to the advertisement that enables a BGP speaker to		attribute needs to be attached to the advertisement that enables a
	determine whether it is intended to be a headend for the advertised		BGP speaker to determine whether it is intended to be a headend for
	policy. This is done by attaching one or more Route Target Extended		the advertised policy. This is done by attaching one or more Route
	Communities to the advertisement [RFC4360].		Target Extended Communities to the advertisement [RFC4360].
	The BGP extensions for the advertisement of SR Policies include		The BGP extensions for the advertisement of SR Policies include
	following components:		following components:
	* A Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) whose NLRIs		* A Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) whose NLRIs identify
	identifies an SR Policy candidate path.		an SR Policy candidate path.
	* A Tunnel Type identifier for SR Policy, and a set of sub-TLVs to		* A Tunnel Type identifier for SR Policy and a set of sub-TLVs to be
	be inserted into the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (as defined in		inserted into the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (as defined in
	[RFC9012]) specifying segment lists of the SR Policy candidate		[RFC9012]) specifying segment lists of the SR Policy candidate
	path, as well as other information about the SR Policy.		path as well as other information about the SR Policy.
	* One or more IPv4 address-specific format route target extended		* One or more IPv4 address-specific format route target extended
	community ([RFC4360]) attached to the SR Policy Candidate Path		community ([RFC4360]) attached to the SR Policy Candidate Path
	advertisement and that indicates the intended headend of such an		advertisement that indicates the intended headend of such an SR
	SR Policy Candidate Path advertisement.		Policy Candidate Path advertisement.
	The SR Policy SAFI route updates utilize the Tunnel Encapsulation		The SR Policy SAFI route updates utilize the Tunnel Encapsulation
	Attribute to signal an SR Policy, which itself functions as a tunnel.		Attribute to signal an SR Policy, which itself functions as a tunnel.
	This usage differs notably from the approach described in [RFC9012],		This usage differs notably from the approach described in [RFC9012],
	where the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is associated with a BGP		where the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is associated with a BGP
	route update (e.g., for Internet or VPN routes) to specify the tunnel		route update (e.g., for Internet or VPN routes) to specify the tunnel
	used for forwarding traffic. This document does not modify or		used for forwarding traffic. This document does not modify or
	supersede the usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for		supersede the usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for
	existing AFI/SAFIs as defined in [RFC9012]. Details regarding the		existing AFIs/SAFIs as defined in [RFC9012]. Details regarding the
	processing of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for the SR Policy		processing of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for the SR Policy
	SAFI are provided in Section 2.2 and Section 2.3.		SAFI are provided in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
	The northbound advertisement of the operational state of the SR		The northbound advertisement of the operational state of the SR
	Policy Candidate Paths as part of BGP-LS [RFC9552] topology		Policy Candidate Paths as part of BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC9552]
	information is specified in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy].		topology information is specified in [SR-BGP-LS].
	The signaling of Dynamic and Composite Candidate Paths (sections 5.2		The signaling of Dynamic and Composite Candidate Paths (Sections 5.2
	and 5.3 respectively of [RFC9256]) is outside the scope of this		and 5.3, respectively, of [RFC9256]) is outside the scope of this
	document.		document.
	The Color Extended Community (as defined in [RFC9012]) is used to		The Color Extended Community (as defined in [RFC9012]) is used to
	steer traffic into an SR Policy, as described in section 8.8 of		steer traffic into an SR Policy, as described in Section 8.8 of
	[RFC9256]. The Section 3 of this document updates [RFC9012] with		[RFC9256]. Section 3 of this document updates [RFC9012] with
	modifications to the format of the Flags field of the Color Extended		modifications to the format of the Flags field of the Color Extended
	Community by using the two leftmost bits of that field.		Community by using the two leftmost bits of that field.
	1.1. Requirements Language		1.1. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	2. SR Policy Encoding		2. SR Policy Encoding
	2.1. SR Policy SAFI and NLRI		2.1. SR Policy SAFI and NLRI
	A SAFI is introduced in this document: the SR Policy SAFI with		The SR Policy SAFI with code point 73 is introduced in this document.
	codepoint 73. The AFI used MUST be IPv4(1) or IPv6(2).		The AFI used MUST be IPv4(1) or IPv6(2).
	The SR Policy SAFI uses the NLRI format defined as follows:		The SR Policy SAFI uses the NLRI format defined as follows:
	+------------------+		+------------------+
	| NLRI Length | 1 octet		| NLRI Length | 1 octet
	+------------------+		+------------------+
	| Distinguisher | 4 octets		| Distinguisher | 4 octets
	+------------------+		+------------------+
	| Policy Color | 4 octets		| Policy Color | 4 octets
	+------------------+		+------------------+
	| Endpoint | 4 or 16 octets		| Endpoint | 4 or 16 octets
	+------------------+		+------------------+
	Figure 1: SR Policy SAFI Format		Figure 1: SR Policy SAFI Format
	where:		Where:
	* NLRI Length: 1 octet indicating the length expressed in bits as		NLRI Length: 1 octet indicating the length expressed in bits as
	defined in [RFC4760]. When AFI = 1 the value MUST be 96 and when		defined in [RFC4760]. When AFI = 1, the value MUST be 96; when
	AFI = 2 the value MUST be 192.		AFI = 2, the value MUST be 192.
	* Distinguisher: 4-octet value uniquely identifying the policy in		Distinguisher: 4-octet value uniquely identifying the policy in the
	the context of <color, endpoint> tuple. The distinguisher has no		context of <color, endpoint> tuple. The distinguisher has no
	semantic value and is solely used by the SR Policy originator to		semantic value and is solely used by the SR Policy originator to
	make unique (from an NLRI perspective) both for multiple candidate		make unique (from an NLRI perspective) both for multiple candidate
	paths of the same SR Policy as well as candidate paths of		paths of the same SR Policy as well as candidate paths of
	different SR Policies (i.e. with different segment lists) with the		different SR Policies (i.e., with different segment lists) with
	same Color and Endpoint but meant for different headends. The		the same Color and Endpoint but meant for different headends. The
	distinguisher is the discriminator of the SR Policy candidate path		distinguisher is the discriminator of the SR Policy candidate path
	as specified in section 2.5 of [RFC9256].		as specified in Section 2.5 of [RFC9256].
	* Policy Color: 4 octets that carry an unsigned non-zero integer		Policy Color: 4 octets that carry an unsigned non-zero integer value
	value indicating the color of the SR Policy as specified in		indicating the color of the SR Policy as specified in Section 2.1
	section 2.1 of [RFC9256]. The color is used to match the color of		of [RFC9256]. The color is used to match the color of the
	the destination prefixes to steer traffic into the SR Policy as		destination prefixes to steer traffic into the SR Policy as
	specified in section 8 of [RFC9256].		specified in Section 8 of [RFC9256].
	* Endpoint: value identifies the endpoint of a policy. The Endpoint		Endpoint: a value that identifies the endpoint of a policy. The
	may represent a single node or a set of nodes (e.g., an anycast		Endpoint may represent a single node or a set of nodes (e.g., an
	address). The Endpoint is an IPv4 (4-octet) address or an IPv6		anycast address). The Endpoint is an IPv4 (4-octet) address or an
	(16-octet) address according to the AFI of the NLRI. The address		IPv6 (16-octet) address according to the AFI of the NLRI. The
	can be either a unicast or an unspecified address (0.0.0.0 for		address can be either unicast or an unspecified address (0.0.0.0
	IPv4, :: for IPv6), known as null endpoint, as specified in		for IPv4, :: for IPv6), known as a null endpoint as specified in
	section 2.1 of [RFC9256].		Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].
	The color and endpoint are used to automate the steering of BGP		The color and endpoint are used to automate the steering of BGP
	service routes on SR Policy as described in section 8 of [RFC9256].		service routes on an SR Policy as described in Section 8 of
			[RFC9256].
	The NLRI containing an SR Policy candidate path is carried in a BGP		The NLRI containing an SR Policy candidate path is carried in a BGP
	UPDATE message [RFC4271] using BGP multi-protocol extensions		UPDATE message [RFC4271] using BGP multiprotocol extensions [RFC4760]
	[RFC4760] with an AFI of 1 or 2 (IPv4 or IPv6) and with a SAFI of 73.		with an AFI of 1 or 2 (IPv4 or IPv6) and with a SAFI of 73. The
	The fault management and error handling in the encoding of the NLRI		fault management and error handling in the encoding of the NLRI are
	is specified in Section 5.		specified in Section 5.
	An update message that carries the MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI		An update message that carries the MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI
	attribute with the SR Policy SAFI MUST also carry the BGP mandatory		attribute with the SR Policy SAFI MUST also carry the BGP mandatory
	attributes. In addition, the BGP update message MAY also contain any		attributes. In addition, the BGP update message MAY also contain any
	of the BGP optional attributes.		of the BGP optional attributes.
	The next-hop network address field in SR Policy SAFI (73) updates may		The next-hop network address field in SR Policy SAFI (73) updates may
	be either a 4-octet IPv4 address or a 16-octet IPv6 address,		be either a 4-octet IPv4 address or a 16-octet IPv6 address,
	independent of the SR Policy AFI. The length field of the next-hop		independent of the SR Policy AFI. The length field of the next-hop
	address specifies the next-hop address family. If the next-hop		address specifies the next-hop address family. If the next-hop
	length is 4, then the next-hop is an IPv4 address; if the next-hop		length is 4, then the next-hop is an IPv4 address. If the next-hop
	length is 16, then it is a global IPv6 address; if the next-hop		length is 16, then it is a global IPv6 address. If the next-hop
	length is 32, then it has a global IPv6 address followed by a link-		length is 32, then it has a global IPv6 address followed by a link-
	local IPv6 address. The setting of the next-hop field and its		local IPv6 address. The setting of the next-hop field and its
	attendant processing is governed by standard BGP procedures as		attendant processing is governed by standard BGP procedures as
	described in section 3 of [RFC4760] and section 3 of [RFC2545].		described in Section 3 of [RFC4760] and Section 3 of [RFC2545].
	It is important to note that at any BGP speaker receiving BGP updates		It is important to note that at any BGP speaker receiving BGP updates
	with SR Policy NLRIs, the SRPM processes only the best path as per		with SR Policy NLRIs, the SRPM processes only the best path as per
	the BGP best-path selection algorithm. In other words, this document		the BGP best-path selection algorithm. In other words, this document
	leverages the existing BGP propagation and best-path selection rules.		leverages the existing BGP propagation and best-path selection rules.
	Details of the procedures are described in Section 4.		Details of the procedures are described in Section 4.
	It has to be noted that if several candidate paths of the same SR		It has to be noted that if several candidate paths of the same SR
	Policy (endpoint, color) are signaled via BGP to a headend, then it		Policy (endpoint, color) are signaled via BGP to a headend, then it
	is RECOMMENDED that each NLRI uses a different distinguisher. If BGP		is RECOMMENDED that each NLRI use a different distinguisher. If BGP
	has installed into the BGP table two advertisements whose respective		has installed into the BGP table two advertisements whose respective
	NLRIs have the same color and endpoint, but different distinguishers,		NLRIs have the same color and endpoint, but different distinguishers,
	both advertisements are passed to the SRPM as different candidate		both advertisements are passed to the SRPM as different candidate
	paths along with their respective originator information (i.e., ASN		paths along with their respective originator information (i.e.,
	and BGP Router-ID) as described in section 2.4 of [RFC9256]. The ASN		Autonomous System Number (ASN) and BGP Router-ID) as described in
	would be the ASN of the origin and the BGP Router-ID is determined in		Section 2.4 of [RFC9256]. The ASN would be the ASN of the origin and
	the following order:		the BGP Router-ID is determined in the following order:
	* From the Route Origin Community [RFC4360] if present and carrying		* From the Route Origin Community [RFC4360] if present and carrying
	an IP Address, or		an IP Address, or
	* As the BGP Originator ID [RFC4456] if present, or		* As the BGP Originator ID [RFC4456] if present, or
	* As the BGP Router-ID of the peer from which the update was		* As the BGP Router-ID of the peer from which the update was
	received as a last resort.		received as a last resort.
	The Section 2.9 of [RFC9256] specifies the selection of the active		Section 2.9 of [RFC9256] specifies the selection of the active
	candidate path of the SR Policy by the SRPM based on the information		candidate path of the SR Policy by the SRPM based on the information
	provided to it by BGP.		provided to it by BGP.
	2.2. SR Policy and Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute		2.2. SR Policy and Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
	The content of the SR Policy Candidate Path is encoded in the Tunnel		The content of the SR Policy Candidate Path is encoded in the Tunnel
	Encapsulation Attribute defined in [RFC9012] using a Tunnel-Type		Encapsulation Attribute defined in [RFC9012] using a Tunnel-Type
	called SR Policy Type with codepoint 15. The use of SR Policy		called the "SR Policy" type with code point 15. The use of the SR
	Tunnel-type is applicable only for the AFI/SAFI pairs of (1/73,		Policy Tunnel-type is applicable only for the AFI/SAFI pairs of
	2/73). This document specifies the use of the Tunnel Encapsulation		(1/73, 2/73). This document specifies the use of the Tunnel
	Attribute with the SR Policy Tunnel-Type and the use of any other		Encapsulation Attribute with the SR Policy Tunnel-Type and the use of
	Tunnel-Type with the SR Policy SAFI MUST be considered malformed and		any other Tunnel-Type with the SR Policy SAFI MUST be considered
	handled by the "Treat-as-Withdraw" strategy [RFC7606].		malformed and handled by the "treat-as-withdraw" strategy [RFC7606].
	The SR Policy Encoding structure is as follows:		The SR Policy Encoding structure is as follows:
	SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>		SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
	Attributes:		Attributes:
	Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (23)		Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (23)
	Tunnel Type: SR Policy (15)		Tunnel Type: SR Policy (15)
	Binding SID		Binding SID
	Preference		Preference
	Priority		Priority
	Policy Name		Policy Name
	Policy Candidate Path Name		Policy Candidate Path Name
	Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)		Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
	Segment List		Segment List
	Weight		Weight
	Segment		Segment
	Segment		Segment
	...		...
	...		...
	Figure 2: SR Policy Encoding		Figure 2: SR Policy Encoding
	where:		Where:
	* SR Policy SAFI NLRI is defined in Section 2.1.		* The SR Policy SAFI NLRI is defined in Section 2.1.
	* Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is defined in [RFC9012].		* The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is defined in [RFC9012].
	* Tunnel-Type is set to 15.		* The Tunnel-Type is set to 15.
	* Preference, Binding SID, Priority, Policy Name, Policy Candidate		* Preference, Binding SID, Priority, Policy Name, Policy Candidate
	Path Name, ENLP, Segment-List, Weight, and Segment sub-TLVs are		Path Name, ENLP, Segment-List, Weight, and Segment sub-TLVs are
	defined in Section 2.4.		defined in Section 2.4.
	* Additional sub-TLVs may be defined in the future.		* Additional sub-TLVs may be defined in the future.
	A Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute MUST NOT contain more than one TLV		A Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute MUST NOT contain more than one TLV
	of type "SR Policy"; such updates MUST be considered malformed and		of type "SR Policy"; such updates MUST be considered malformed and
	handled by the "Treat-as-Withdraw" strategy [RFC7606].		handled by the "treat-as-withdraw" strategy [RFC7606].
	BGP does not need to perform the validation of the tunnel (i.e., SR		BGP does not need to perform the validation of the tunnel (i.e., SR
	Policy) itself as indicated in section 6 of [RFC9012]. The		Policy) itself as indicated in Section 6 of [RFC9012]. The
	validation of the SR Policy information that is advertised using the		validation of the SR Policy information that is advertised using the
	sub-TLVs specified in Section 2.4 is performed by the SRPM.		sub-TLVs specified in Section 2.4 is performed by the SRPM.
	2.3. Applicability of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs		2.3. Applicability of Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
	The Tunnel Egress Endpoint and Color sub-TLVs of the Tunnel		The Tunnel Egress Endpoint and Color sub-TLVs of the Tunnel
	Encapsulation Attribute, as defined in [RFC9012], are not utilized		Encapsulation Attribute, as defined in [RFC9012], are not utilized
	for SR Policy encodings. Consequently, their values are not relevant		for SR Policy encodings. Consequently, their values are not relevant
	within the context of the SR Policy SAFI NLRI. If these sub-TLVs are		within the context of the SR Policy SAFI NLRI. If these sub-TLVs are
	present, a BGP speaker MUST ignore them and MAY remove them from the		present, a BGP speaker MUST ignore them and MAY remove them from the
	skipping to change at page 10, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at line 440 ¶
	information about the SR Policy Candidate Path.		information about the SR Policy Candidate Path.
	Preference, Binding SID, SRv6 Binding SID, Segment-List, Priority,		Preference, Binding SID, SRv6 Binding SID, Segment-List, Priority,
	Policy Name, Policy Candidate Path Name, and Explicit NULL Label		Policy Name, Policy Candidate Path Name, and Explicit NULL Label
	Policy are all optional sub-TLVs introduced for the BGP Tunnel		Policy are all optional sub-TLVs introduced for the BGP Tunnel
	Encapsulation Attribute [RFC9012] being defined in this section.		Encapsulation Attribute [RFC9012] being defined in this section.
	Weight and Segment are sub-TLVs of the Segment-List sub-TLV mentioned		Weight and Segment are sub-TLVs of the Segment-List sub-TLV mentioned
	above.		above.
	An early version of this document included only the Binding SID sub-		An early draft version of this document included only the Binding SID
	TLV that could be used for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 Binding SIDs. The		sub-TLV that could be used for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 Binding SIDs.
	SRv6 Binding SID TLV was introduced in later versions to support the		The SRv6 Binding SID TLV was introduced in later versions to support
	advertisement of additional SRv6 capabilities without affecting		the advertisement of additional SRv6 capabilities without affecting
	backward compatibility for early implementations.		backward compatibility for early implementations.
	The fault management and error handling in the encoding of the sub-		The fault management and error handling in the encoding of the sub-
	TLVs defined in this section are specified in Section 5. For the		TLVs defined in this section are specified in Section 5. For the
	TLVs/sub-TLVs that are specified as single instance, only the first		TLVs/sub-TLVs that are specified as single instance, only the first
	instance of that TLV/sub-TLV is used and the other instances MUST be		instance of that TLV/sub-TLV is used: the other instances MUST be
	ignored and MUST NOT considered to be malformed.		ignored and MUST NOT considered to be malformed.
	None of the sub-TLVs defined in the following sub-sections have any		None of the sub-TLVs defined in the following subsections have any
	effect on the BGP best-path selection or propagation procedures.		effect on the BGP best-path selection or propagation procedures.
	These sub-TLVs are not used by the BGP path selection process and are		These sub-TLVs are not used by the BGP path selection process and are
	instead passed on to SRPM as SR Policy Candidate Path information for		instead passed on to SRPM as SR Policy Candidate Path information for
	further processing described in section 2 of [RFC9256].		further processing as described in Section 2 of [RFC9256].
	The use of SR Policy Sub-TLVs is applicable only for the AFI/SAFI		The use of SR Policy Sub-TLVs is applicable only for the AFI/SAFI
	pairs of (1/73, 2/73). Future documents may extend their		pairs of (1/73, 2/73). Future documents may extend their
	applicability to other AFI/SAFI.		applicability to other AFI/SAFI.
	2.4.1. Preference Sub-TLV		2.4.1. Preference Sub-TLV
	The Preference sub-TLV is used to carry the Preference of an SR		The Preference sub-TLV is used to carry the Preference of an SR
	Policy candidate path. The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the		Policy candidate path. The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the
	SRPM as described in section 2.7 of [RFC9256].		SRPM as described in Section 2.7 of [RFC9256].
	The Preference sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than		The Preference sub-TLV is OPTIONAL; it MUST NOT appear more than once
	once in the SR Policy encoding.		in the SR Policy encoding.
	The Preference sub-TLV has following format:		The Preference sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |		| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Preference (4 octets) |		| Preference (4 octets) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 3: Preference sub-TLV		Figure 3: Preference Sub-TLV
	where:		Where:
	* Type: 12		Type: 12
	* Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value MUST be 6.
	MUST be 6.
	* Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this document.		Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this document.
	The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be		The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
	ignored on receipt.		ignored on receipt.
	* RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	* Preference: a 4-octet value indicating the Preference of the SR		Preference: a 4-octet value indicating the Preference of the SR
	Policy Candidate Path as described in section 2.7 of [RFC9256].		Policy Candidate Path as described in Section 2.7 of [RFC9256].
	2.4.2. Binding SID Sub-TLV		2.4.2. Binding SID Sub-TLV
	The Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal the binding SID related		The Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal the BSID-related
	information of the SR Policy candidate path. The contents of this		information of the SR Policy candidate path. The contents of this
	sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in section 6 in [RFC9256].		sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in Section 6 of [RFC9256].
	The Binding SID sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than		The Binding SID sub-TLV is OPTIONAL; it MUST NOT appear more than
	once in the SR Policy encoding.		once in the SR Policy encoding.
	When the Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal an SRv6 SID, the		When the Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal an SRv6 SID, the
	selection of the corresponding SRv6 Endpoint Behavior [RFC8986] to be		selection of the corresponding SRv6 Endpoint Behavior [RFC8986] to be
	instantiated is determined by the headend node. It is RECOMMENDED		instantiated is determined by the headend node. It is RECOMMENDED
	that the SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV, as defined in Section 2.4.3, be		that the SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV, as defined in Section 2.4.3, be
	used when signaling an SRv6 Binding SID for an SR Policy candidate		used when signaling an SRv6 Binding SID for an SR Policy candidate
	path. The support for the use of this Binding SID sub-TLV for		path. The support for the use of this Binding SID sub-TLV for the
	signaling of SRv6 Binding SID is retained primarily for backward		signaling of an SRv6 Binding SID is retained primarily for backward
	compatibility with implementations that followed early versions of		compatibility with implementations that followed early draft versions
	this document that had not defined the SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV.		of this document that had not defined the SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV.
	The Binding SID sub-TLV has the following format:		The Binding SID sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |		| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Binding SID (variable, optional) |		| Binding SID (variable, optional) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 4: Binding SID sub-TLV		Figure 4: Binding SID Sub-TLV
	where:		Where:
	* Type: 13		Type: 13
	* Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value MUST be 18
	MUST be one of: 18 when a SRv6 BSID is present, 6 when a SR-MPLS		when a SRv6 BSID is present, 6 when an SR-MPLS BSID is present, or
	BSID is present, or 2 when no BSID is present.		2 when no BSID is present.
	* Flags: 1 octet of flags. The following flags are defined in the		Flags: 1 octet of flags. The following flags are defined in the
	registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in		registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in
	Section 6.6:		Section 6.6:
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|S|I| |		|S|I| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 5: SR Policy Binding SID Flags		Figure 5: SR Policy Binding SID Flags
	where:		Where:
	- S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior.		* The S-Flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-Only" behavior. It is
	It is used by SRPM as described in section 6.2.3 in [RFC9256].		used by SRPM as described in Section 6.2.3 of [RFC9256].
	- I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It		* The I-Flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is
	is used by SRPM as described in section 8.2 in [RFC9256] to		used by SRPM as described in Section 8.2 of [RFC9256] to define
	define a specific SR Policy forwarding behavior. The flag		a specific SR Policy forwarding behavior. The flag indicates
	indicates that the SR Policy is to perform the "drop upon		that the SR Policy is to perform the "drop upon invalid"
	invalid" behavior when no valid candidate path (CP) is		behavior when no valid candidate path (CP) is available for
	available for this SR Policy. In this situation, the CP with		this SR Policy. In this situation, the CP with the highest
	the highest preference amongst those with the "drop upon		preference amongst those with the "drop upon invalid" config is
	invalid" config is made active to drop traffic steered over the		made active to drop traffic steered over the SR Policy.
	SR Policy.
	- The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon		* The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon
	transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.		transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
	* RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. MUST be set to zero on		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. MUST be set to zero on
	transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	* Binding SID: If the length is 2, then no Binding SID is present.		Binding SID: If the length is 2, then no Binding SID is present. If
	If the length is 6 then the Binding SID is encoded in 4 octets		the length is 6, then the Binding SID is encoded in 4 octets using
	using the format below. Traffic Class (TC), S, and TTL (Total of		the format below. Traffic Class (TC), S, and TTL (Total of 12
	12 bits) are RESERVED and MUST be set to zero and MUST be ignored.		bits) are RESERVED and MUST be set to zero and MUST be ignored.
	0 1 2 3		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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label | TC |S| TTL |		| Label | TC |S| TTL |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 6: Binding SID Label Encoding		Figure 6: Binding SID Label Encoding
	The Label field is validated by the SRPM, but MUST NOT contain the		The Label field is validated by the SRPM but MUST NOT contain the
	reserved MPLS label values (0-15). If the length is 18 then the		reserved MPLS label values (0-15). If the length is 18, then the
	Binding SID contains a 16-octet SRv6 SID.		Binding SID contains a 16-octet SRv6 SID.
	2.4.3. SRv6 Binding SID Sub-TLV		2.4.3. SRv6 Binding SID Sub-TLV
	The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal the SRv6 Binding SID		The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV is used to signal the SRv6 Binding SID
	related information of an SR Policy candidate path. It enables the		related information of an SR Policy candidate path. It enables the
	specification of the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior [RFC8986] to be		specification of the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior [RFC8986] to be
	instantiated on the headend node. The contents of this sub-TLV are		instantiated on the headend node. The contents of this sub-TLV are
	used by the SRPM as described in section 6 in [RFC9256].		used by the SRPM as described in Section 6 of [RFC9256].
	The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV is OPTIONAL. More than one SRv6 Binding		The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV is OPTIONAL. More than one SRv6 Binding
	SID sub-TLVs MAY be signaled in the same SR Policy encoding to		SID sub-TLV MAY be signaled in the same SR Policy encoding to
	indicate one or more SRv6 SIDs, each with potentially different SRv6		indicate one or more SRv6 SIDs, each with potentially different SRv6
	Endpoint Behaviors to be instantiated.		Endpoint Behaviors to be instantiated.
	The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV has the following format:		The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |		| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| SRv6 Binding SID (16 octets) |		| SRv6 Binding SID (16 octets) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	// SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure (optional) //		// SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure (optional) //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 7: SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV		Figure 7: SRv6 Binding SID Sub-TLV
	where:		Where:
	* Type: 20		Type: 20
	* Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value MUST be 26
	MUST be 26 when the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure is		when the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure is present;
	present else it MUST be 18.		else, it MUST be 18.
	* Flags: 1 octet of flags. The following flags are defined in the		Flags: 1 octet of flags. The following flags are defined in the
	registry "SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags" as described in		registry "SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags" as described in
	Section 6.7:		Section 6.7:
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|S|I|B| |		|S|I|B| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 8: SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags		Figure 8: SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags
	where:		Where:
	- S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior.		* The S-Flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-Only" behavior. It is
	It is used by SRPM as described in section 6.2.3 in [RFC9256].		used by SRPM as described in Section 6.2.3 of [RFC9256].
	- I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It		* The I-Flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is
	is used by SRPM as described in section 8.2 in [RFC9256].		used by SRPM as described in Section 8.2 of [RFC9256].
	- B-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates the presence of the SRv6		* The B-Flag, when set, indicates the presence of the "SRv6
	Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure encoding specified in		Endpoint Behavior & SID Structure" encoding specified in
	Section 2.4.4.2.4.		Section 2.4.4.2.4.
	- The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon		* The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon
	transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.		transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
	* RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	* SRv6 Binding SID: Contains a 16-octet SRv6 SID. The value 0 MAY		SRv6 Binding SID: Contains a 16-octet SRv6 SID. The value 0 MAY be
	be used when the controller wants to indicate the desired SRv6		used when the controller wants to indicate the desired SRv6
	Endpoint Behavior, SID Structure, or flags without specifying the		Endpoint Behavior, SID Structure, or flags without specifying the
	BSID.		BSID.
	* SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure: Optional, as defined in		SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure: Optional, as defined in
	Section 2.4.4.2.4. The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure		Section 2.4.4.2.4. The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
	MUST NOT be included when the SRv6 SID has not been included.		MUST NOT be included when the SRv6 SID has not been included.
	2.4.4. Segment List Sub-TLV		2.4.4. Segment List Sub-TLV
	The Segment List sub-TLV encodes a single explicit path towards the		The Segment List sub-TLV encodes a single explicit path towards the
	endpoint as described in section 5.1 of [RFC9256]. The Segment List		endpoint as described in Section 5.1 of [RFC9256]. The Segment List
	sub-TLV includes the elements of the paths (i.e., segments) as well		sub-TLV includes the elements of the paths (i.e., segments) as well
	as an optional Weight sub-TLV.		as an optional Weight sub-TLV.
	The Segment List sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in length due to a		The Segment List sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in length due to a
	large number of segments. A 2-octet length is thus required.		large number of segments. A 2-octet length is thus required.
	According to section 2 of [RFC9012], the sub-TLV type defines the		According to Section 2 of [RFC9012], the sub-TLV type defines the
	size of the length field. Therefore, for the Segment List sub-TLV, a		size of the length field. Therefore, for the Segment List sub-TLV, a
	code point of 128 or higher is used.		code point of 128 or higher is used.
	The Segment List sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MAY appear multiple times in		The Segment List sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MAY appear multiple times in
	the SR Policy encoding. The ordering of Segment List sub-TLVs does		the SR Policy encoding. The ordering of Segment List sub-TLVs does
	not matter since each sub-TLV encodes a Segment List.		not matter since each sub-TLV encodes a Segment List.
	The Segment List sub-TLV contains zero or more Segment sub-TLVs and		The Segment List sub-TLV contains zero or more Segment sub-TLVs and
	MAY contain a Weight sub-TLV.		MAY contain a Weight sub-TLV.
	The Segment List sub-TLV has the following format:		The Segment List sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		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 |		| Type | Length | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	// sub-TLVs //		// sub-TLVs //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 9: Segment List sub-TLV		Figure 9: Segment List Sub-TLV
	where:
	* Type: 128.		Where:
	* Length: the total length (not including the Type and Length		Type: 128
	fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Segment List sub-TLV in
	terms of octets.
	* RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		Length: The total length (not including the Type and Length fields)
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Segment List sub-TLV in terms
			of octets.
	* sub-TLVs currently defined:		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
			on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	- An optional single Weight sub-TLV.		sub-TLVs currently defined:
			* An optional single Weight sub-TLV
	- Zero or more Segment sub-TLVs.		* Zero or more Segment sub-TLVs
	Validation of an explicit path encoded by the Segment List sub-TLV is		Validation of an explicit path encoded by the Segment List sub-TLV is
	beyond the scope of BGP and performed by the SRPM as described in		beyond the scope of BGP and performed by the SRPM as described in
	section 5 of [RFC9256].		Section 5 of [RFC9256].
	2.4.4.1. Weight Sub-TLV		2.4.4.1. Weight Sub-TLV
	The Weight sub-TLV specifies the weight associated with a given		The Weight sub-TLV specifies the weight associated with a given
	segment list. The contents of this sub-TLV are used only by the SRPM		segment list. The contents of this sub-TLV are used only by the SRPM
	as described in section 2.11 of [RFC9256].		as described in Section 2.11 of [RFC9256].
	The Weight sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than once		The Weight sub-TLV is OPTIONAL; it MUST NOT appear more than once
	inside the Segment List sub-TLV.		inside the Segment List sub-TLV.
	The Weight sub-TLV has the following format:		The Weight sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |		| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Weight |		| Weight |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 10: Weight sub-TLV		Figure 10: Weight Sub-TLV
	where:		Where:
	* Type: 9.		Type: 9
	* Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value MUST be 6.
	MUST be 6.
	* Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this document.		Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this document.
	The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be		The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
	ignored on receipt.		ignored on receipt.
	* RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	* Weight: 4 octets an unsigned integer value indicating the weight		Weight: 4 octets an unsigned integer value indicating the weight
	associated with a segment list as described in section 2.11 of		associated with a segment list as described in Section 2.11 of
	[RFC9256]. A weight value of zero is invalid.		[RFC9256]. A weight value of zero is invalid.
	2.4.4.2. Segment Sub-TLVs		2.4.4.2. Segment Sub-TLVs
	A Segment sub-TLV describes a single segment in a segment list (i.e.,		A Segment sub-TLV describes a single segment in a segment list (i.e.,
	a single element of the explicit path). One or more Segment sub-TLVs		a single element of the explicit path). One or more Segment sub-TLVs
	constitute an explicit path of the SR Policy candidate path. The		constitute an explicit path of the SR Policy candidate path. The
	contents of these sub-TLVs are used only by the SRPM as described in		contents of these sub-TLVs are used only by the SRPM as described in
	section 4 in [RFC9256].		Section 4 of [RFC9256].
	The Segment sub-TLVs are OPTIONAL and MAY appear multiple times in		The Segment sub-TLVs are OPTIONAL and MAY appear multiple times in
	the Segment List sub-TLV.		the Segment List sub-TLV.
	Section 4 of [RFC9256] defines several Segment Types:		Section 4 of [RFC9256] defines several Segment Types:
	Type A: SR-MPLS Label		Type A: SR-MPLS Label
	Type B: SRv6 SID
	Type C: IPv4 Prefix with optional SR Algorithm
	Type D: IPv6 Global Prefix with optional SR Algorithm for SR-MPLS
	Type E: IPv4 Prefix with Local Interface ID
	Type F: IPv4 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair
	Type G: IPv6 Prefix and Interface ID for link endpoints as Local,
	Remote pair for SR-MPLS
	Type H: IPv6 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair
	for SR-MPLS
	Type I: IPv6 Global Prefix with optional SR Algorithm for SRv6
	Type J: IPv6 Prefix and Interface ID for link endpoints as Local,
	Remote pair for SRv6
	Type K: IPv6 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair
	for SRv6
	The following sub-sections specify the sub-TLVs used for Segment		Type B: SRv6 SID
	Types A and B. The other segment types are specified in
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext]. As specified in section 5.1 of		Type C: IPv4 Prefix with optional SR Algorithm
	[RFC9256], a mix of SR-MPLS and SRv6 segments make the segment-list
	invalid.		Type D: IPv6 Global Prefix with optional SR Algorithm for SR-MPLS
			Type E: IPv4 Prefix with Local Interface ID
			Type F: IPv4 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair
			Type G: IPv6 Prefix and Interface ID for link endpoints as Local,
			Remote pair for SR-MPLS
			Type H: IPv6 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair for
			SR-MPLS
			Type I: IPv6 Global Prefix with optional SR Algorithm for SRv6
			Type J: IPv6 Prefix and Interface ID for link endpoints as Local,
			Remote pair for SRv6
			Type K: IPv6 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair for
			SRv6
			The following subsections specify the sub-TLVs used for Segment Types
			A and B. The other segment types are specified in [RFC9831]. As
			specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC9256], a mix of SR-MPLS and SRv6
			segments make the segment-list invalid.
	2.4.4.2.1. Segment Type A		2.4.4.2.1. Segment Type A
	The Type A Segment Sub-TLV encodes a single SR-MPLS SID. The format		The Type A Segment sub-TLV encodes a single SR-MPLS SID. The format
	is as follows and is used to encode MPLS Label fields as specified in		is as follows and is used to encode MPLS Label fields as specified in
	[RFC3032] [RFC5462].:		[RFC3032] and [RFC5462]:
	0 1 2 3		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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |		| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Label | TC |S| TTL |		| Label | TC |S| TTL |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 11: Type A Segment sub-TLV		Figure 11: Type A Segment Sub-TLV
	where:		Where:
	* Type: 1.		Type: 1
	* Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value MUST be 6.
	MUST be 6.
	* Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.4.2.3.		Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.4.2.3.
	* RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	* Label: 20 bits of label value.		Label: 20 bits of label value.
	* TC: 3 bits of traffic class.		TC: 3 bits of traffic class.
	* S: 1 bit of bottom-of-stack.		S: 1 bit of bottom-of-stack.
	* TTL: 1 octet of TTL.		TTL: 1 octet of TTL.
	The following applies to the Type-1 Segment sub-TLV:		The following applies to the Type-1 Segment sub-TLV:
	* The S bit MUST be zero upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon		* The S bit MUST be zero upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon
	reception.		reception.
	* If the originator wants the receiver to choose the TC value, it		* If the originator wants the receiver to choose the TC value, it
	sets the TC field to zero.		sets the TC field to zero.
	* If the originator wants the receiver to choose the TTL value, it		* If the originator wants the receiver to choose the TTL value, it
	skipping to change at page 19, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at line 868 ¶
	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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |		| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	// SRv6 SID (16 octets) //		// SRv6 SID (16 octets) //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	// SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure //		// SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure //
	// (optional, 8 octets) //		// (optional, 8 octets) //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 12: Type B Segment sub-TLV		Figure 12: Type B Segment Sub-TLV
	where:		Where:
	* Type: 13.		Type: 13
	* Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value MUST be 26
	MUST be 26 when the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure is		when the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure is present;
	present else it MUST be 18.		else, it MUST be 18.
	* Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.4.2.3.		Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.4.2.3.
	* RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	* SRv6 SID: 16 octets of IPv6 address.		SRv6 SID: 16 octets of IPv6 address.
	* SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure: Optional, as defined in		SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure: Optional, as defined in
	Section 2.4.4.2.4. The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure		Section 2.4.4.2.4. The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
	MUST NOT be included when the SRv6 SID has not been included.		MUST NOT be included when the SRv6 SID has not been included.
	The Sub-TLV code point 2 defined for the advertisement of Segment		The Sub-TLV code point 2 defined for the advertisement of Segment
	Type B in the earlier versions of this document has been deprecated		Type B in the earlier draft versions of this document has been
	to avoid backward compatibility issues.		deprecated to avoid backward compatibility issues.
	2.4.4.2.3. SR Policy Segment Flags		2.4.4.2.3. SR Policy Segment Flags
	The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the following		The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the following
	SR Policy Segment Flags in their "Flags" field. Also refer to		SR Policy Segment Flags in their "Flags" field. Also refer to
	Section 6.8:		Section 6.8:
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|V| |B| |		|V| |B| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 22: SR Policy Segment Flags		Figure 13: SR Policy Segment Flags
	where:		Where:
	V-Flag: This flag, when set, is used by SRPM for "SID		* When the V-Flag is set, it is used by SRPM for "SID verification"
	verification" as described in Section 5.1 of [RFC9256].		as described in Section 5.1 of [RFC9256].
	B-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates the presence of the SRv6		* When the B-Flag is set, it indicates the presence of the "SRv6
	Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure encoding specified in		Endpoint Behavior & SID Structure" encoding specified in
	Section 2.4.4.2.4.		Section 2.4.4.2.4.
	The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon		* The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon
	transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.		transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
	The following applies to the Segment Flags:		The following applies to the Segment Flags:
	* V-Flag applies to all Segment Types.		* V-Flag applies to all Segment Types.
	* B-Flag applies to Segment Type B. If B-Flag appears with Segment		* B-Flag applies to Segment Type B. If B-Flag appears with Segment
	Type A it MUST be ignored.		Type A, it MUST be ignored.
	2.4.4.2.4. SRv6 SID Endpoint Behavior and Structure		2.4.4.2.4. SRv6 SID Endpoint Behavior and Structure
	The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above MAY contain the SRv6		The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above MAY contain the SRv6
	Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure [RFC8986] encoding as described		Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure [RFC8986] encoding as described
	below:		below:
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Endpoint Behavior | Reserved |		| Endpoint Behavior | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LB Length | LN Length | Fun. Length | Arg. Length |		| LB Length | LN Length | Fun. Length | Arg. Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 23: SRv6 SID Endpoint Behavior and Structure		Figure 14: SRv6 SID Endpoint Behavior and Structure
	where:		Where:
	Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. It carries the SRv6 Endpoint		Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. It carries the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior
	Behavior code point for this SRv6 SID as defined in section 10.2		code point for this SRv6 SID as defined in Section 10.2 of
	of [RFC8986]. When set with the value 0xFFFF (i.e., Opaque), the		[RFC8986]. When set with the value 0xFFFF (i.e., Opaque), the
	choice of SRv6 Endpoint Behavior is left to the headend.		choice of SRv6 Endpoint Behavior is left to the headend.
	Reserved: 2 octets of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		Reserved: 2 octets of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	Locator Block Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in		Locator Block Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in
	bits.		bits.
	Locator Node Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in		Locator Node Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.
	bits.
	Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.		Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.
	Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.		Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.
	The total of the locator block, locator node, function, and argument		The total of the locator block, locator node, function, and argument
	lengths MUST be less than or equal to 128.		lengths MUST be less than or equal to 128.
	2.4.5. Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV		2.4.5. Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV
	To steer an unlabeled IP packet into an SR policy for the MPLS data		To steer an unlabeled IP packet into an SR policy for the MPLS data
	plane, it is necessary to push a label stack of one or more labels on		plane, it is necessary to push a label stack of one or more labels on
	that packet.		that packet.
	The Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) sub-TLV is used to indicate		The Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) sub-TLV is used to indicate
	whether an Explicit NULL Label [RFC3032] must be pushed on an		whether an Explicit NULL Label [RFC3032] must be pushed on an
	unlabeled IP packet before any other labels.		unlabeled IP packet before any other labels.
	If an ENLP Sub-TLV is not present, the decision of whether to push an		If an ENLP Sub-TLV is not present, the decision of whether to push an
	Explicit NULL label on a given packet is a matter of local		Explicit NULL label on a given packet is a matter of local
	configuration.		configuration.
	The ENLP sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than once in		The ENLP sub-TLV is OPTIONAL; it MUST NOT appear more than once in
	the SR Policy encoding.		the SR Policy encoding.
	The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in		The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in
	section 4.1 of [RFC9256].		Section 4.1 of [RFC9256].
	0 1 2 3		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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |		| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| ENLP |		| ENLP |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 24: ELNP sub-TLV		Figure 15: ELNP Sub-TLV
	Where:		Where:
	Type: 14.		Type: 14
	Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value MUST be 3.
	MUST be 3.
	Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this document.		Flags: 1 octet of flags. No flags are defined in this document.
	The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be		The Flags field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
	ignored on receipt.		ignored on receipt.
	RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	ENLP (Explicit NULL Label Policy): Indicates whether Explicit NULL		ENLP (Explicit NULL Label Policy): Indicates whether Explicit NULL
	labels are to be pushed on unlabeled IP packets that are being		labels are to be pushed on unlabeled IP packets that are being
	steered into a given SR policy. The following values have been		steered into a given SR policy. The following values have been
	currently defined for this field:		currently defined for this field:
	- 1: Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4		1: Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet
	packet, but do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an		but do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled
	unlabeled IPv6 packet.		IPv6 packet.
	- 2: Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6		2: Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet
	packet, but do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an		but do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled
	unlabeled IPv4 packet.		IPv4 packet.
	- 3: Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4		3: Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet
	packet, and push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled		and push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6
	IPv6 packet.		packet.
	- 4: Do not push an Explicit NULL label.		4: Do not push an Explicit NULL label.
	This field can have one of the values as specified in		This field can have one of the values as specified in
	Section 6.10. The ENLP unassigned values may be used for future		Section 6.10. The ENLP unassigned values may be used for future
	extensions. Implementations adhering to this document MUST ignore		extensions. Implementations adhering to this document MUST ignore
	the ENLP Sub-TLV with unrecognized values (viz. other than 1		the ENLP Sub-TLV with unrecognized values (viz. other than 1
	through 4). The behavior signaled in this Sub-TLV MAY be		through 4). The behavior signaled in this Sub-TLV MAY be
	overridden by local configuration by the network operator based on		overridden by local configuration by the network operator based on
	their deployment requirements. The section 4.1 of [RFC9256]		their deployment requirements. Section 4.1 of [RFC9256] describes
	describes the behavior on the headend for the handling of the		the behavior on the headend for the handling of the explicit null
	explicit null label.		label.
	2.4.6. Policy Priority Sub-TLV		2.4.6. Policy Priority Sub-TLV
	An operator MAY set the Policy Priority sub-TLV to indicate the order		An operator MAY set the Policy Priority sub-TLV to indicate the order
	in which the SR policies are re-computed upon topological change.		in which the SR policies are recomputed upon topological change. The
	The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in		contents of this sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in
	section 2.12 of [RFC9256].		Section 2.12 of [RFC9256].
	The Priority sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than		The Priority sub-TLV is OPTIONAL; it MUST NOT appear more than once
	once in the SR Policy encoding.		in the SR Policy encoding.
	The Priority sub-TLV has following format:		The Priority sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Priority | RESERVED |		| Type | Length | Priority | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 25: Priority sub-TLV		Figure 16: Priority Sub-TLV
	Where:		Where:
	Type: 15		Type: 15
	Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets.The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value MUST be 2.
	MUST be 2.
	Priority: a 1-octet value indicating the priority as specified in		Priority: A 1-octet value indicating the priority as specified in
	section 2.12 of [RFC9256].		Section 2.12 of [RFC9256].
	RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	2.4.7. Policy Candidate Path Name Sub-TLV		2.4.7. Policy Candidate Path Name Sub-TLV
	An operator MAY set the Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV to attach		An operator MAY set the Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV to attach
	a symbolic name to the SR Policy candidate path.		a symbolic name to the SR Policy candidate path.
	Usage of Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV is described in section		Usage of the Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV is described in
	2.6 of [RFC9256].		Section 2.6 of [RFC9256].
	The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in length		The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in length
	due to a long name. A 2-octet length is thus required. According to		due to a long name. A 2-octet length is thus required. According to
	section 2 of [RFC9012], the sub-TLV type defines the size of the		Section 2 of [RFC9012], the sub-TLV type defines the size of the
	length field. Therefore, for the Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV		length field. Therefore, for the Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV,
	a code point of 128 or higher is used.		a code point of 128 or higher is used.
	It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the symbolic name for the		It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the symbolic name for the
	candidate path is limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose		candidate path be limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose
	to truncate long names to 255 bytes when signaling via BGP.		to truncate long names to 255 bytes when signaling via BGP.
	The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT		The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV is OPTIONAL; it MUST NOT
	appear more than once in the SR Policy encoding.		appear more than once in the SR Policy encoding.
	The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV has following format:		The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		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 |		| Type | Length | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	// Policy Candidate Path Name //		// Policy Candidate Path Name //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 26: Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV		Figure 17: Policy Candidate Path Name Sub-TLV
	Where:		Where:
	Type: 129.		Type: 129
	Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value is
	is variable.		variable.
	RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	Policy Candidate Path Name: Symbolic name for the SR Policy		Policy Candidate Path Name: Symbolic name for the SR Policy
	candidate path without a NULL terminator with encoding as		candidate path without a NULL terminator with encoding as
	specified in section 2.6 of [RFC9256].		specified in Section 2.6 of [RFC9256].
	2.4.8. Policy Name Sub-TLV		2.4.8. Policy Name Sub-TLV
	An operator MAY set the Policy Name sub-TLV to associate a symbolic		An operator MAY set the Policy Name sub-TLV to associate a symbolic
	name with the SR Policy for which the candidate path is being		name with the SR Policy for which the candidate path is being
	advertised via the SR Policy NLRI.		advertised via the SR Policy NLRI.
	Usage of Policy Name sub-TLV is described in section 2.1 of		Usage of the Policy Name sub-TLV is described in Section 2.1 of
	[RFC9256].		[RFC9256].
	The Policy Name sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in length due to a long		The Policy Name sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes in length due to a long
	policy name. A 2-octet length is thus required. According to		policy name. A 2-octet length is thus required. According to
	section 2 of [RFC9012], the sub-TLV type defines the size of the		Section 2 of [RFC9012], the sub-TLV type defines the size of the
	length field. Therefore, for the Policy Name sub-TLV a code point of		length field. Therefore, for the Policy Name sub-TLV, a code point
	128 or higher is used.		of 128 or higher is used.
	It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the symbolic name for the SR		It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the symbolic name for the SR
	Policy is limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose to		Policy be limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose to
	truncate long names to 255 bytes when signaling via BGP.		truncate long names to 255 bytes when signaling via BGP.
	The Policy Name sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and it MUST NOT appear more than		The Policy Name sub-TLV is OPTIONAL; it MUST NOT appear more than
	once in the SR Policy encoding.		once in the SR Policy encoding.
	The Policy Name sub-TLV has following format:		The Policy Name sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		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 |		| Type | Length | RESERVED |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	// Policy Name //		// Policy Name //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 27: Policy Name sub-TLV		Figure 18: Policy Name Sub-TLV
	Where:		Where:
	Type: 130		Type: 130
	Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not		Length: Specifies the length of the value field (i.e., not including
	including Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value		Type and Length fields) in terms of octets. The value is
	is variable.		variable.
	RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to		RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. This field MUST be set to zero
	zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.		on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
	Policy Name: Symbolic name for the SR Policy without a NULL		Policy Name: Symbolic name for the SR Policy without a NULL
	terminator with encoding as specified in section 2.1 of [RFC9256].		terminator with encoding as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].
	3. Color Extended Community		3. Color Extended Community
	The Color Extended Community [RFC9012] is used to steer traffic		The Color Extended Community [RFC9012] is used to steer traffic
	corresponding to BGP routes into an SR Policy with matching color		corresponding to BGP routes into an SR Policy with matching color
	value. The Color Extended Community MAY be carried in any BGP UPDATE		value. The Color Extended Community MAY be carried in any BGP UPDATE
	message whose AFI/SAFI is 1/1 (IPv4 Unicast), 2/1 (IPv6 Unicast), 1/4		message whose AFI/SAFI is 1/1 (IPv4 Unicast), 2/1 (IPv6 Unicast), 1/4
	(IPv4 Labeled Unicast), 2/4 (IPv6 Labeled Unicast), 1/128 (VPN-IPv4		(IPv4 Labeled Unicast), 2/4 (IPv6 Labeled Unicast), 1/128 (VPN-IPv4
	Labeled Unicast), 2/128 (VPN-IPv6 Labeled Unicast), or 25/70		Labeled Unicast), 2/128 (VPN-IPv6 Labeled Unicast), or 25/70
	(Ethernet VPN, usually known as EVPN). Use of the Color Extended		(Ethernet VPN, usually known as EVPN). Use of the Color Extended
	Community in BGP UPDATE messages of other AFI/SAFIs is not covered by		Community in BGP UPDATE messages of other AFI/SAFIs is not covered by
	[RFC9012] and is hence outside the scope of this document as well.		[RFC9012]; hence, it is outside the scope of this document as well.
	Two bits from the Flags field of the Color Extended Community are		Two bits from the Flags field of the Color Extended Community are
	used as follows to support the requirements of Color-Only steering as		used as follows to support the requirements of Color-Only steering as
	specified in Section 8.8 of [RFC9256]:		specified in Section 8.8 of [RFC9256]:
	1		1
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|C O| Unassigned |		|C O| Unassigned |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 28: Color Extended Community Flags		Figure 19: Color Extended Community Flags
	The CO bits together form the Color-Only Type field which indicates		The C and O bits together form the Color-Only Type field, which
	the various matching criteria between BGP NH and SR Policy endpoint		indicates the various matching criteria between the BGP NH and the SR
	in addition to the matching of the color value. Following types are		Policy endpoint in addition to the matching of the color value. The
	defined:		following types are defined:
	* Type 0 (bits 00): Specific Endpoint Match: Request match for the		Type 0 (bits 00): Specific Endpoint Match. Request a match for the
	endpoint that is the BGP NH		endpoint that is the BGP NH.
	* Type 1 (bits 01): Specific or Null Endpoint Match: Request match		Type 1 (bits 01): Specific or Null Endpoint Match. Request a match
	for either the endpoint that is the BGP NH or a null endpoint		for either the endpoint that is the BGP NH or a null endpoint
	(e.g., like a default gateway)		(e.g., a default gateway).
	* Type 2 (bits 10): Specific, Null, or Any Endpoint Match: Request		Type 2 (bits 10): Specific, Null, or Any Endpoint Match. Request a
	match for either the endpoint that is the BGP NH or with a null or		match for either the endpoint that is the BGP NH or a null or any
	any endpoint		endpoint.
	* Type 3 (bits 11): reserved for future use and SHOULD NOT be used.		Type 3 (bits 11): Reserved for future use and SHOULD NOT be used.
	Upon reception, an implementation MUST treat it like Type 0.		Upon reception, an implementation MUST treat it like Type 0.
	The details of the SR Policy steering mechanisms based on these		The details of the SR Policy steering mechanisms based on these
	Color-Only types are specified in section 8.8 of [RFC9256].		Color-Only types are specified in Section 8.8 of [RFC9256].
	One or more Color Extended Communities MAY be associated with a BGP		One or more Color Extended Communities MAY be associated with a BGP
	route update. Sections 8.4.1, 8.5.1, and 8.8.2 of [RFC9256] specify		route update. Sections 8.4.1, 8.5.1, and 8.8.2 of [RFC9256] specify
	the steering behaviors over SR Policies when multiple Color Extended		the steering behaviors over SR Policies when multiple Color Extended
	Communities are associated with a BGP route.		Communities are associated with a BGP route.
	4. SR Policy Operations		4. SR Policy Operations
	As mentioned in Section 1, BGP is not the actual consumer of an SR		As mentioned in Section 1, BGP is not the actual consumer of an SR
	Policy NLRI. BGP is in charge of the origination and propagation of		Policy NLRI. BGP is in charge of the origination and propagation of
	the SR Policy NLRI but its installation and use are outside the scope		the SR Policy NLRI, but its installation and use are outside the
	of BGP. The details of SR Policy installation and use are specified		scope of BGP. The details of SR Policy installation and use are
	in [RFC9256].		specified in [RFC9256].
	4.1. Advertisement of SR Policies		4.1. Advertisement of SR Policies
	Typically, but not limited to, an SR Policy is computed by a		Typically, but not limited to, an SR Policy is computed by a
	controller or a path computation engine (PCE) and originated by a BGP		controller or a Path Computation Engine (PCE) and originated by a BGP
	speaker on its behalf.		speaker on its behalf.
	Multiple SR Policy NLRIs may be present with the same <color,		Multiple SR Policy NLRIs may be present with the same <color,
	endpoint> tuple but with different distinguishers when these SR		endpoint> tuple but with different distinguishers when these SR
	policies are intended for different headends.		policies are intended for different headends.
	The distinguisher of each SR Policy NLRI prevents undesired BGP route		The distinguisher of each SR Policy NLRI prevents undesired BGP route
	selection among these SR Policy NLRIs and allows their propagation		selection among these SR Policy NLRIs and allows their propagation
	across route reflectors [RFC4456].		across route reflectors [RFC4456].
	skipping to change at page 27, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at line 1250 ¶
	If no route target is attached to the SR Policy NLRI, then it is		If no route target is attached to the SR Policy NLRI, then it is
	assumed that the originator sends the SR Policy update directly		assumed that the originator sends the SR Policy update directly
	(e.g., through a BGP session) to the intended receiver. In such a		(e.g., through a BGP session) to the intended receiver. In such a
	case, the NO_ADVERTISE community [RFC1997] MUST be attached to the SR		case, the NO_ADVERTISE community [RFC1997] MUST be attached to the SR
	Policy update (see further details in Section 4.2.3).		Policy update (see further details in Section 4.2.3).
	4.2. Reception of an SR Policy NLRI		4.2. Reception of an SR Policy NLRI
	On reception of an SR Policy NLRI, a BGP speaker first determines if		On reception of an SR Policy NLRI, a BGP speaker first determines if
	it is valid as described in Section 4.2.1 and then performs the		it is valid as described in Section 4.2.1; then, the BGP speaker
	decision process for selection of the best route (Section 9.1 of		performs the decision process for selection of the best route
	[RFC4271]). The key difference from the base BGP decision process is		(Section 9.1 of [RFC4271]). The key difference from the base BGP
	that BGP does not download the selected best routes of SR Policy SAFI		decision process is that BGP does not download the selected best
	into the forwarding and instead considers them "usable" for passing		routes of the SR Policy SAFI into the forwarding; instead, it
	on to the SRPM for further processing as described in Section 4.2.2.		considers them "usable" for passing on to the SRPM for further
	The selected best route is "propagated" (Section 9.1.3 of [RFC4271])		processing as described in Section 4.2.2. The selected best route is
	as described in Section 4.2.3 irrespective of its "usability" by the		"propagated" (Section 9.1.3 of [RFC4271]) as described in
	local router.		Section 4.2.3, irrespective of its "usability" by the local router.
	4.2.1. Validation of an SR Policy NLRI		4.2.1. Validation of an SR Policy NLRI
	When a BGP speaker receives an SR Policy NLRI from a neighbor it MUST		When a BGP speaker receives an SR Policy NLRI from a neighbor, it
	first perform validation based on the following rules in addition to		MUST first perform validation based on the following rules in
	the validation described in Section 5:		addition to the validation described in Section 5:
	* The SR Policy NLRI MUST include a distinguisher, color, and		* The SR Policy NLRI MUST include a distinguisher, color, and
	endpoint field which implies that the length of the NLRI MUST be		endpoint field that implies that the length of the NLRI MUST be
	either 12 or 24 octets (depending on the address family of the		either 12 or 24 octets (depending on the address family of the
	endpoint).		endpoint).
	* The SR Policy update MUST have either the NO_ADVERTISE community		* The SR Policy update MUST have either the NO_ADVERTISE community,
	or at least one route target extended community in IPv4-address		at least one route target extended community in IPv4-address
	format or both. If a router supporting this specification		format, or both. If a router supporting this specification
	receives an SR Policy update with no route target extended		receives an SR Policy update with no route target extended
	communities and no NO_ADVERTISE community, the update MUST be		communities and no NO_ADVERTISE community, the update MUST be
	considered as malformed.		considered to be malformed.
	* The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute MUST be attached to the BGP		* The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute MUST be attached to the BGP
	Update and MUST have a Tunnel Type TLV set to SR Policy (codepoint		Update and MUST have a Tunnel Type TLV set to SR Policy (code
	is 15).		point is 15).
	A router that receives an SR Policy update that is not valid		A router that receives an SR Policy update that is not valid
	according to these criteria MUST treat the update as malformed and		according to these criteria MUST treat the update as malformed, and
	the SR Policy candidate path MUST NOT be passed to the SRPM.		the SR Policy candidate path MUST NOT be passed to the SRPM.
	4.2.2. Eligibility for Local Use of an SR Policy NLRI		4.2.2. Eligibility for Local Use of an SR Policy NLRI
	An SR Policy NLRI update without any route target extended community		An SR Policy NLRI update that does not have a route target extended
	but having the NO_ADVERTISE community is considered usable.		community but does have the NO_ADVERTISE community is considered
			usable.
	If one or more route targets are present, then at least one route		If one or more route targets are present, then at least one route
	target MUST match the BGP Identifier of the receiver for the update		target MUST match the BGP Identifier of the receiver for the update
	to be considered usable. The BGP Identifier is defined in [RFC4271]		to be considered usable. The BGP Identifier is defined in [RFC4271]
	as a 4-octet IPv4 address and updated by [RFC6286] as a 4-octet,		as a 4-octet IPv4 address and is updated by [RFC6286] as a 4-octet,
	unsigned, non-zero integer. Therefore, the route target extended		unsigned, non-zero integer. Therefore, the route target extended
	community MUST be of the same format.		community MUST be of the same format.
	If one or more route targets are present and none matches the local		If one or more route targets are present and none matches the local
	BGP Identifier, then, while the SR Policy NLRI is valid, it is not		BGP Identifier, then, while the SR Policy NLRI is valid, it is not
	usable on the receiver node.		usable on the receiver node.
	When the SR Policy tunnel type includes any sub-TLV that is		When the SR Policy tunnel type includes any sub-TLV that is
	unrecognized or unsupported, the update SHOULD NOT be considered		unrecognized or unsupported, the update SHOULD NOT be considered
	usable. An implementation MAY provide an option for ignoring		usable. An implementation MAY provide an option for ignoring
	unsupported sub-TLVs.		unsupported sub-TLVs.
	Once BGP on the receiving node has determined that the SR Policy NLRI		Once BGP on the receiving node has determined that the SR Policy NLRI
	is usable, it passes the SR Policy candidate path to the SRPM. Note		is usable, it passes the SR Policy candidate path to the SRPM. Note
	that, along with the candidate path details, BGP also passes the		that, along with the candidate path details, BGP also passes the
	originator information for breaking ties in the candidate path		originator information for breaking ties in the candidate path
	selection process as described in section 2.4 of [RFC9256].		selection process as described in Section 2.4 of [RFC9256].
	When an update for an SR Policy NLRI results in its becoming		When an update for an SR Policy NLRI results in its becoming
	unusable, BGP MUST delete its corresponding SR Policy candidate path		unusable, BGP MUST delete its corresponding SR Policy candidate path
	from the SRPM.		from the SRPM.
	The SRPM applies the rules defined in section 2 of [RFC9256] to		The SRPM applies the rules defined in Section 2 of [RFC9256] to
	determine whether the SR Policy candidate path is valid and to select		determine whether the SR Policy candidate path is valid and to select
	the active candidate path for a given SR Policy.		the active candidate path for a given SR Policy.
	4.2.3. Propagation of an SR Policy		4.2.3. Propagation of an SR Policy
	SR Policy NLRIs that have the NO_ADVERTISE community attached to them		SR Policy NLRIs that have the NO_ADVERTISE community attached to them
	MUST NOT be propagated.		MUST NOT be propagated.
	By default, a BGP node receiving an SR Policy NLRI MUST NOT propagate		By default, a BGP node receiving an SR Policy NLRI MUST NOT propagate
	it to any EBGP neighbor. An implementation MAY provide an explicit		it to any External BGP (EBGP) neighbor. An implementation MAY
	configuration to override this and enable the propagation of valid SR		provide an explicit configuration to override this and enable the
	Policy NLRIs to specific EBGP neighbors where the SR domain comprises		propagation of valid SR Policy NLRIs to specific EBGP neighbors where
	multiple-ASes within a single service provider domain (see Section 7		the SR domain comprises multiple ASes within a single service
	for details).		provider domain (see Section 7 for details).
	A BGP node advertises a received SR Policy NLRI to its IBGP neighbors		A BGP node advertises a received SR Policy NLRI to its Internal BGP
	according to normal IBGP propagation rules.		(IBGP) neighbors according to normal IBGP propagation rules.
	By default, a BGP node receiving an SR Policy NLRI SHOULD NOT remove		By default, a BGP node receiving an SR Policy NLRI SHOULD NOT remove
	route target extended community before propagation. An		the route target extended community before propagation. An
	implementation MAY provide support for configuration to filter and/or		implementation MAY provide support for configuration to filter and/or
	remove route target extended community before propagation.		remove the route target extended community before propagation.
	A BGP node MUST NOT alter the SR Policy information carried in the		A BGP node MUST NOT alter the SR Policy information carried in the
	Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute during propagation.		Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute during propagation.
	5. Error Handling and Fault Management		5. Error Handling and Fault Management
	This section describes the error handling actions, as described in		This section describes the error-handling actions, as described in
	[RFC7606], that are to be performed for the handling of the BGP		[RFC7606], that are to be performed for the handling of the BGP
	update messages for BGP SR Policy SAFI.		update messages for the BGP SR Policy SAFI.
	A BGP Speaker MUST perform the following syntactic validation of the		A BGP speaker MUST perform the following syntactic validation of the
	SR Policy NLRI to determine if it is malformed. This includes the		SR Policy NLRI to determine if it is malformed. This includes the
	validation of the length of each NLRI and the total length of the		validation of the length of each NLRI and the total length of the
	MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes. It also includes the		MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes. It also includes the
	validation of the consistency of the NLRI length with the AFI and the		validation of the consistency of the NLRI length with the AFI and the
	endpoint address as specified in Section 2.1.		endpoint address as specified in Section 2.1.
	When the error determined allows for the router to skip the malformed		When the error determined allows for the router to skip the malformed
	NLRI(s) and continue the processing of the rest of the update		NLRI(s) and continue the processing of the rest of the update
	message, then it MUST handle such malformed NLRIs as 'Treat-as-		message, then it MUST handle such malformed NLRIs as 'treat-as-
	withdraw'. In other cases, where the error in the NLRI encoding		withdraw'. In other cases, where the error in the NLRI encoding
	results in the inability to process the BGP update message (e.g.		results in the inability to process the BGP update message (e.g.,
	length related encoding errors), then the router SHOULD handle such		length-related encoding errors), then the router SHOULD handle such
	malformed NLRIs as 'AFI/SAFI disable' when other AFI/SAFI besides SR		malformed NLRIs as "AFI/SAFI disable" when other AFIs/SAFIs besides
	Policy are being advertised over the same session. Alternately, the		SR Policy are being advertised over the same session. Alternately,
	router MUST perform 'session reset' when the session is only being		the router MUST perform "session reset" when the session is only
	used for SR Policy or when it 'AFI/SAFI disable' action is not		being used for SR Policy or when a "AFI/SAFI disable" action is not
	possible.		possible.
	The validation of the TLVs/sub-TLVs introduced in this document and		The validation of the TLVs/sub-TLVs introduced in this document and
	defined in their respective sub-sections of Section 2.4 MUST be		defined in their respective subsections of Section 2.4 MUST be
	performed to determine if they are malformed or invalid. The		performed to determine if they are malformed or invalid. The
	validation of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute itself and the other		validation of the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute itself and the other
	TLVs/sub-TLVs specified in Section 13 of [RFC9012] MUST be done as		TLVs/sub-TLVs specified in Section 13 of [RFC9012] MUST be done as
	described in that document. In case of any error detected, either at		described in that document. In case of any error detected, either at
	the attribute or its TLV/sub-TLV level, the "treat-as-withdraw"		the attribute or its TLV/sub-TLV level, the "treat-as-withdraw"
	strategy MUST be applied. This is because an SR Policy update		strategy MUST be applied. This is because an SR Policy update
	without a valid Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (comprising of all		without a valid Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (comprised of all
	valid TLVs/sub-TLVs) is not usable.		valid TLVs/sub-TLVs) is not usable.
	An SR Policy update that is determined to be not valid, and therefore		An SR Policy update that is determined not to be valid (and,
	malformed, based on rules described in Section 4.2.1 MUST be handled		therefore, malformed) based on the rules described in Section 4.2.1
	by the "treat-as-withdraw" strategy.		MUST be handled by the "treat-as-withdraw" strategy.
	The validation of the individual fields of the TLVs/sub-TLVs defined		The validation of the individual fields of the TLVs/sub-TLVs defined
	in Section 2.4 are beyond the scope of BGP as they are handled by the		in Section 2.4 are beyond the scope of BGP as they are handled by the
	SRPM as described in the individual TLV/sub-TLV sub-sections. A BGP		SRPM as described in the individual TLV/sub-TLV subsections. A BGP
	implementation MUST NOT perform semantic verification of such fields		implementation MUST NOT perform semantic verification of such fields
	nor consider the SR Policy update to be invalid or not usable based		nor consider the SR Policy update to be invalid or not usable based
	on such validation.		on such validation.
	An implementation SHOULD log any errors found during the above		An implementation SHOULD log any errors found during the above
	validation for further analysis.		validation for further analysis.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	This document uses code point allocations from the following existing		This document uses code point allocations from the following existing
	registries:		registries in the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI)
			Parameters" registry group:
	* Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters registry		* The "SAFI Values" registry
	* BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types registry under the		This document uses code point allocations from the following existing
	BGP Tunnel Encapsulation registry		registries in the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Tunnel
			Encapsulation" registry group:
	* BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs registry under the BGP		* The "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" registry
	Tunnel Encapsulation registry
	* Color Extended Community Flags registry under the BGP Tunnel		* The "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry
	Encapsulation registry
	This document also requests the creation of the following new		* The "Color Extended Community Flags" registry
	registries:
	* SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs under the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation		This document creates the following new registries in the "Border
	registry		Gateway Protocol (BGP) Tunnel Encapsulation" registry group:
	* SR Policy Binding SID Flags under the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation		* The "SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs" registry
	registry
	* SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags under the BGP Tunnel		* The "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" registry
	Encapsulation registry
	* SR Policy Segment Flags under the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation		* The "SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags" registry
	registry
	* Color Extended Community Color-Only Types registry under the BGP		* The "SR Policy Segment Flags" registry
	Tunnel Encapsulation registry
	* SR Policy ENLP Values under the Segment Routing registry		* The "Color Extended Community Color-Only Types" registry
			This document creates the following new registry in the "Segment
			Routing" registry group:
			* The "SR Policy ENLP Values" registry
	6.1. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters		6.1. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters
	This document introduces a SAFI in the registry "Subsequent Address		This document registers a SAFI code point in the "SAFI Values"
	Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" that has been assigned a code		registry of the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI)
	point by IANA. The entry needs to be updated as follows:		Parameters" registry group as follows:
	Code Point Description Reference		+=======+================+===========+
	-----------------------------------------------		| Value | Description | Reference |
	73 SR Policy SAFI This document		+=======+================+===========+
			| 73 | SR Policy SAFI | RFC 9830 |
			+-------+----------------+-----------+
	Table 1: BGP SAFI Code Point		Table 1: BGP SAFI Code Point
	6.2. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types		6.2. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types
	This document introduces a Tunnel-Type in the registry "BGP Tunnel		This document registers a Tunnel-Type code point in the "BGP Tunnel
	Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" that has been assigned a		Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" registry under the "Border
	codepoint by IANA. The entry needs to be updated as follows:		Gateway Protocol (BGP) Tunnel Encapsulation" registry group.
	Code Point Description Reference		+=======+=============+===========+
	--------------------------------------------------		| Value | Description | Reference |
	15 SR Policy This document		+=======+=============+===========+
			| 15 | SR Policy | RFC 9830 |
			+-------+-------------+-----------+
	Table 2: Tunnel Type Code Point		Table 2: Tunnel Type Code Point
	6.3. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs		6.3. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
	This document defines sub-TLVs in the registry "BGP Tunnel		This document defines sub-TLVs in the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
	Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" that have been assigned code points		Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
	by IANA as follows via the early allocation process which needs to be		Tunnel Encapsulation" registry group.
	made permanent:
	Code Point Description Reference		+=======+====================================+===========+
	------------------------------------------------------------		| Value | Description | Reference |
	12 Preference sub-TLV This document		+=======+====================================+===========+
	13 Binding SID sub-TLV This document		| 12 | Preference sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
	14 ENLP sub-TLV This document		+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	15 Priority sub-TLV This document		| 13 | Binding SID sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
	20 SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV This document		+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	128 Segment List sub-TLV This document		| 14 | ENLP sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
	129 Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV This document		+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	130 Policy Name sub-TLV This document		| 15 | Priority sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
			+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
			| 20 | SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
			+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
			| 128 | Segment List sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
			+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
			| 129 | Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
			+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
			| 130 | Policy Name sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
			+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	Table 3: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Code Points		Table 3: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV
			Code Points
	6.4. Color Extended Community Flags		6.4. Color Extended Community Flags
	This document defines the use of 2 bits in the registry called "Color		This document defines the use of 2 bits in the "Color Extended
	Extended Community Flags" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation"		Community Flags" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
	registry that have been assigned by IANA via the early allocation		Tunnel Encapsulation" registry group.
	process to form the Color-Only Types field which needs to be made
	permanent:
	Bit		+==============+========================+===========+
	Position Description Reference		| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
	------------------------------------------------------------------		+==============+========================+===========+
	0-1 Color-only Types Field This document		| 0-1 | Color-only Types Field | RFC 9830 |
			+--------------+------------------------+-----------+
	Table 4: Color Extended Community Flag Bits		Table 4: Color Extended Community Flag Bits
	6.5. SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs		6.5. SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs
	This document requests the creation of a new registry called "SR		This document creates a new registry called "SR Policy Segment List
	Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation"		Sub-TLVs" under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Tunnel
	registry. The allocation policy of this registry is "IETF Review"		Encapsulation" registry group. The registration policy of this
	according to [RFC8126].		registry is "IETF Review" (see [RFC8126]).
	Following initial Sub-TLV codepoints are assigned by this document:		The following initial sub-TLV code points are assigned by this
			document:
	Value Description Reference		+========+========================+===========+
	-----------------------------------------------------		| Value | Description | Reference |
	0 Reserved This document		+========+========================+===========+
	1 Segment Type A sub-TLV This document		| 0 | Reserved | RFC 9830 |
	2 Deprecated This document		+--------+------------------------+-----------+
	3-8 Unassigned		| 1 | Segment Type A sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
	9 Weight sub-TLV This document		+--------+------------------------+-----------+
	10 Deprecated This document		| 2 | Deprecated | RFC 9830 |
	11 Deprecated This document		+--------+------------------------+-----------+
	12 Deprecated This document		| 3-8 | Unassigned |
	13 Segment Type B sub-TLV This document		+--------+------------------------+-----------+
	14-255 Unassigned		| 9 | Weight sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
			+--------+------------------------+-----------+
			| 10 | Deprecated | RFC 9830 |
			+--------+------------------------+-----------+
			| 11 | Deprecated | RFC 9830 |
			+--------+------------------------+-----------+
			| 12 | Deprecated | RFC 9830 |
			+--------+------------------------+-----------+
			| 13 | Segment Type B sub-TLV | RFC 9830 |
			+--------+------------------------+-----------+
			| 14-255 | Unassigned |
			+--------+------------------------------------+
	Table 5: SR Policy Segment List Code Points		Table 5: SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLV
			Code Points
	6.6. SR Policy Binding SID Flags		6.6. SR Policy Binding SID Flags
	This document requests the creation of a new registry called "SR		This document creates a new registry called "SR Policy Binding SID
	Policy Binding SID Flags" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation"		Flags" under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Tunnel Encapsulation"
	registry. The allocation policy of this registry is "Standards		registry group. The registration policy of this registry is
	Action" according to [RFC8126].		"Standards Action" (see [RFC8126]).
	The following flags are defined:		The following flags are defined:
	Bit Description Reference		+=====+===================================+===========+
	-----------------------------------------------------------------		| Bit | Description | Reference |
	0 Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag) This document		+=====+===================================+===========+
	1 Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag) This document		| 0 | Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag) | RFC 9830 |
	2-7 Unassigned		+-----+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| 1 | Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag) | RFC 9830 |
			+-----+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| 2-7 | Unassigned |
			+-----+-----------------------------------------------+
	Table 6: SR Policy Binding SID Flags		Table 6: SR Policy Binding SID Flags
	6.7. SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags		6.7. SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags
	This document requests the creation of a new registry called "SR		This document creates a new registry called "SR Policy SRv6 Binding
	Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation"		SID Flags" under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Tunnel
	registry. The allocation policy of this registry is "Standards		Encapsulation" registry group. The registration policy of this
	Action" according to [RFC8126].		registry is "Standards Action" (see [RFC8126]).
	The following flags are defined:		The following flags are defined:
	Bit Description Reference		+=====+===================================+===========+
	-----------------------------------------------------------------		| Bit | Description | Reference |
	0 Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag) This document		+=====+===================================+===========+
	1 Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag) This document		| 0 | Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag) | RFC 9830 |
	2 SRv6 Endpoint Behavior &		+-----+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	SID Structure Flag (B-Flag) This document		| 1 | Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag) | RFC 9830 |
	3-7 Unassigned		+-----+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| 2 | SRv6 Endpoint Behavior & SID | RFC 9830 |
			| | Structure Flag (B-Flag) | |
			+-----+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| 3-7 | Unassigned |
			+-----+-----------------------------------------------+
	Table 7: SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags		Table 7: SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags
	6.8. SR Policy Segment Flags		6.8. SR Policy Segment Flags
	This document requests the creation of a new registry called "SR		This document creates a new registry called "SR Policy Segment Flags"
	Policy Segment Flags" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation" registry.		under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Tunnel Encapsulation"
	The allocation policy of this registry is "IETF Review" according to		registry group. The registration policy of this registry is "IETF
	[RFC8126].		Review" (see [RFC8126]).
	The following flags are defined:		The following flags are defined:
	Bit Description Reference		+=====+====================================+===========+
	------------------------------------------------------------------		| Bit | Description | Reference |
	0 Segment Verification Flag (V-Flag) This document		+=====+====================================+===========+
	1-2 Unassigned		| 0 | Segment Verification Flag (V-Flag) | RFC 9830 |
	3 SRv6 Endpoint Behavior &		+-----+------------------------------------+-----------+
	SID Structure Flag (B-Flag) This document		| 1-2 | Unassigned |
	4-7 Unassigned		+-----+------------------------------------+-----------+
			| 3 | SRv6 Endpoint Behavior & SID | RFC 9830 |
			| | Structure Flag (B-Flag) | |
			+-----+------------------------------------+-----------+
			| 4-7 | Unassigned |
			+-----+------------------------------------------------+
	Table 8: SR Policy Segment Flags		Table 8: SR Policy Segment Flags
	6.9. Color Extended Community Color-Only Types		6.9. Color Extended Community Color-Only Types
	This document requests the creation of a new registry called "Color		This document creates a new registry called "Color Extended Community
	Extended Community Color-Only Types" under the "BGP Tunnel		Color-Only Types" under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Tunnel
	Encapsulation" registry for assignment of codepoints (values 0		Encapsulation" registry group for assignment of code points (values 0
	through 3) in the Color-Only Type field of the Color Extended		through 3) in the Color-Only Type field of the Color Extended
	Community Flags field. The allocation policy of this registry is		Community Flags field. The registration policy of this registry is
	"Standards Action" according to [RFC8126].		"Standards Action" (see [RFC8126]).
	The following types are defined:		The following types are defined:
	Type Description Reference		+======+=======================================+===========+
	-----------------------------------------------------------		| Type | Description | Reference |
	0 Specific Endpoint Match This document		+======+=======================================+===========+
	1 Specific or Null Endpoint Match This document		| 0 | Specific Endpoint Match | RFC 9830 |
	2 Specific, Null, or Any Endpoint Match This document		+------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
	3 Unassigned This document		| 1 | Specific or Null Endpoint Match | RFC 9830 |
			+------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
			| 2 | Specific, Null, or Any Endpoint Match | RFC 9830 |
			+------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
			| 3 | Unassigned | RFC 9830 |
			+------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
	Table 9: Color Extended Community Color-Only Types		Table 9: Color Extended Community Color-Only Types
	6.10. SR Policy ENLP Values		6.10. SR Policy ENLP Values
	Note to IANA (RFC editor to remove this before publication): The new		IANA will maintain a new registry under the "Segment Routing"
	registry creation request below is also present in the draft-ietf-		registry group with the registration policy of "Standards Action"
	pce-segment-routing-policy-cp. IANA is requested to process the		(see [RFC8126]). The new registry is called "SR Policy ENLP Values"
	registry creation via the first of these two documents to reach		and contains the code points allocated to the "ENLP" field defined in
	publication stage and the authors of the other document would update		Section 2.4.5. The registry contains the following code points:
	the IANA considerations suitably.
	This document requests IANA to maintain a new registry under "Segment
	Routing" registry group with the allocation policy of "Standards
	Action" [RFC8126]. The new registry is called "SR Policy ENLP
	Values" and contains the codepoints allocated to the "ENLP" field
	defined in Section 2.4.5. The registry contains the following
	codepoints, with initial values, to be assigned by IANA with the
	reference set to this document:
	+-------+-----------------------------------+---------------+		+=======+===================================+===========+
	| Code | | |		| Code | Description | Reference |
	| Point | Description | Reference |		| Point | | |
	+-------+-----------------------------------+---------------+		+=======+===================================+===========+
	| 0 | Reserved (not to be used) | This document |		| 0 | Reserved (not to be used) | RFC 9830 |
	| 1 | Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label | This document |		+-------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	| | on an unlabeled IPv4 packet, but | |		| 1 | Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label | RFC 9830 |
	| | do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL | |		| | on an unlabeled IPv4 packet but | |
	| | label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet | |		| | do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL | |
	| 2 | Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label | This document |		| | label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet | |
	| | on an unlabeled IPv6 packet, but | |		+-------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	| | do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL | |		| 2 | Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label | RFC 9830 |
	| | label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet | |		| | on an unlabeled IPv6 packet but | |
	| 3 | Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label | This document |		| | do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL | |
	| | on an unlabeled IPv6 packet, and | |		| | label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet | |
	| | push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label | |		+-------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	| | on an unlabeled IPv4 packet | |		| 3 | Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label | RFC 9830 |
	| 4 | Do not push an Explicit NULL | This document |		| | on an unlabeled IPv6 packet and | |
	| | label | |		| | push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label | |
	| 5-255 | Unassigned | |		| | on an unlabeled IPv4 packet | |
	+-------+-----------------------------------+---------------+		+-------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| 4 | Do not push an Explicit NULL | RFC 9830 |
			| | label | |
			+-------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| 5-255 | Unassigned |
			+-------+-----------------------------------------------+
	Table 10: SR Policy ENLP Values		Table 10: SR Policy ENLP Values
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	The security mechanisms of the base BGP security model apply to the		The security mechanisms of the base BGP security model apply to the
	extensions described in this document as well. See the Security		extensions described in this document as well. See the Security
	Considerations section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security.		Considerations section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security.
	Also, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security		Also, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security
	issues for BGP.		issues for BGP.
	The BGP SR Policy extensions specified in this document enable		The BGP SR Policy extensions specified in this document enable
	traffic engineering and service programming use-cases within an SR		traffic engineering and service programming use cases within an SR
	domain as described in [RFC9256]. SR operates within a trusted SR		domain as described in [RFC9256]. SR operates within a trusted SR
	domain [RFC8402] and its security considerations also apply to BGP		domain [RFC8402]; its security considerations also apply to BGP
	sessions when carrying SR Policy information. The SR Policies		sessions when carrying SR Policy information. The SR Policies
	distributed by BGP are expected to be used entirely within this		distributed by BGP are expected to be used entirely within this
	trusted SR domain which comprises a single AS or multiple ASes/		trusted SR domain, which comprises a single AS or multiple ASes /
	domains within a single provider network. Therefore, precaution is		domains within a single provider network. Therefore, precaution is
	necessary to ensure that the SR Policy information advertised via BGP		necessary to ensure that the SR Policy information advertised via BGP
	sessions is limited to nodes in a secure manner within this trusted		sessions is limited to nodes in a secure manner within this trusted
	SR domain. BGP peering sessions for address-families other than SR		SR domain. BGP peering sessions for address families other than SR
	Policy SAFI may be set up to routers outside the SR domain. The		Policy SAFI may be set up to routers outside the SR domain. The
	isolation of BGP SR Policy SAFI peering sessions may be used to		isolation of BGP SR Policy SAFI peering sessions may be used to
	ensure that the SR Policy information is not advertised by accident		ensure that the SR Policy information is not advertised by accident
	or error to an EBGP peering session outside the SR domain.		or in error to an EBGP peering session outside the SR domain.
	Additionally, it may be considered that the export of SR Policy		Additionally, it may be a consideration that the export of SR Policy
	information, as described in this document, constitutes a risk to		information, as described in this document, constitutes a risk to
	confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially sensitive		confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially sensitive
	information about the network (more specifically endpoint/node		information about the network (more specifically endpoint/node
	addresses, SR SIDs, and the SR Policies deployed). BGP peerings are		addresses, SR SIDs, and the SR Policies deployed). BGP peerings are
	not automatic and require configuration; thus, it is the		not automatic and require configuration; thus, it is the
	responsibility of the network operator to ensure that only trusted		responsibility of the network operator to ensure that only trusted
	nodes (that include both routers and controller applications) within		nodes (that include both routers and controller applications) within
	the SR domain are configured to receive such information.		the SR domain are configured to receive such information.
	8. Manageability Considerations		8. Manageability Considerations
	The specification of BGP models is an ongoing work based on		The specification of BGP models is an ongoing work based on
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model] and its future extensions are expected to		[BGP-YANG-MODEL]; its future extensions are expected to cover the SR
	cover the SR Policy SAFI. Existing BGP operational procedures also		Policy SAFI. Existing BGP operational procedures also apply to the
	apply to the SAFI specified in this document. The management,		SAFI specified in this document. The management, operations, and
	operations, and monitoring of BGP speakers and the SR Policy SAFI		monitoring of BGP speakers and the SR Policy SAFI sessions between
	sessions between them are not very different from other BGP sessions		them are not very different from other BGP sessions and can be
	and can be managed using the same data models.		managed using the same data models.
	The YANG model for the operation and management of SR Policies
	[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang] reports the SR Policies provisioned
	via BGP SR Policy SAFI along with their operational states.
	9. Acknowledgments
	The authors of this document would like to thank Shyam Sethuram, John
	Scudder, Przemyslaw Krol, Alex Bogdanov, Nandan Saha, Bruno Decraene,
	Gurusiddesh Nidasesi, Kausik Majumdar, Zafar Ali, Swadesh Agarwal,
	Jakob Heitz, Viral Patel, Peng Shaofu, Cheng Li, Martin Vigoureux,
	John Scudder, Vincent Roca, Brian Haberman, Mohamed Boucadair,
	Shunwan Zhuang, Andrew Alston, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang, Nagendra
	Nainar, Rajesh Melarcode Venkateswaran, Nat Kao, Boris Hassanov,
	Vincent Roca, Russ Housley, and Dan Romascanu for their comments and
	review of this document. The authors would like to thank Susan Hares
	for her detailed shepherd review that helped in improving the
	document.
	10. Contributors
	Eric Rosen
	Juniper Networks
	US
	Email: erosen@juniper.net
	Arjun Sreekantiah
	Cisco Systems
	US
	Email: asreekan@cisco.com
	Acee Lindem
	Cisco Systems
	US
	Email: acee@cisco.com
	Siva Sivabalan
	Cisco Systems
	US
	Email: msiva@cisco.com
	Imtiyaz Mohammad
	Arista Networks
	India
	Email: imtiyaz@arista.com
	Gaurav Dawra
	Cisco Systems
	US
	Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
	Peng Shaofu
	ZTE Corporation
	China
	Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
	Steven Lin
	Calix
	USA
	Email: steven.lin@calix.com		The YANG data model for the operation and management of SR Policies
			[SR-POLICY-YANG] reports the SR Policies provisioned via BGP SR
			Policy SAFI along with their operational states.
	11. References		9. References
	11.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities		[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
	Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,		Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	skipping to change at page 40, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at line 1810 ¶
	[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,		[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
	"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,		"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,		DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
	[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,		[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
	A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",		A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
	RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,		RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
	11.2. Informational References		9.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]
	Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J., Gredler, H., and J.
	Tantsura, "Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies using
	BGP Link-State", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
	ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-10, 9 December 2024,
	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
	ls-sr-policy-10>.
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]		[BGP-YANG-MODEL]
	Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "YANG		Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "YANG
	Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in		Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in
	Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-18, 21		Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-18, 21
	October 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/		October 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-18>.		draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-18>.
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext]
	Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mattes, P., and
	D. Jain, "Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP
	SR Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
	idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-06, 7 November 2024,
	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
	sr-segtypes-ext-06>.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang]
	Raza, S. K., Saleh, T., Shunwan, Z., Voyer, D., Durrani,
	M., Matsushima, S., and V. P. Beeram, "YANG Data Model for
	Segment Routing Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
	draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang-04, 22 November 2024,
	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
	sr-policy-yang-04>.
	[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",		[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
	RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,		RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
	[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route		[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
	Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP		Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
	(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,		(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
	[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of		[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
	BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying		BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
	and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design		and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
	Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,		Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
	[RFC9552] Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and		[RFC9552] Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and
	Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552,		Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023,		DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9552>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9552>.
			[RFC9831] Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mattes,
			P., and D. Jain, "Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions
			for BGP SR Policy", RFC 9831, DOI 10.17487/RFC9831, July
			2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9831>.
			[SR-BGP-LS]
			Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Dong, J., Gredler, H.,
			and J. Tantsura, "Advertisement of Segment Routing
			Policies using BGP Link-State", Work in Progress,
			Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-16, 3
			March 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
			ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-16>.
			[SR-POLICY-YANG]
			Raza, K., Ed., Saleh, T., Shunwan, Z., Voyer, D., Durrani,
			M., Matsushima, S., and V. Beeram, "YANG Data Model for
			Segment Routing Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
			draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang-04, 22 November 2024,
			<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
			sr-policy-yang-04>.
			Acknowledgments
			The authors of this document would like to thank Shyam Sethuram, John
			Scudder, Przemyslaw Krol, Alex id Bogdanov, Nandan Saha, Bruno
			Decraene, Gurusiddesh Nidasesi, Kausik Majumdar, Zafar Ali, Swadesh
			Agarwal, Jakob Heitz, Viral Patel, Peng Shaofu, Cheng Li, Martin
			Vigoureux, John Scudder, Vincent Roca, Brian Haberman, Mohamed
			Boucadair, Shunwan Zhuang, Andrew Alston, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang,
			Nagendra Nainar, Rajesh Melarcode Venkateswaran, Nat Kao, Boris
			Hassanov, Vincent Roca, Russ Housley, and Dan Romascanu for their
			comments and review of this document. The authors would like to
			thank Susan Hares for her detailed shepherd review that helped in
			improving the document.
			Contributors
			Eric Rosen
			Juniper Networks
			United States of America
			Email: erosen@juniper.net
			Arjun Sreekantiah
			Cisco Systems
			United States of America
			Email: asreekan@cisco.com
			Acee Lindem
			Cisco Systems
			United States of America
			Email: acee@cisco.com
			Siva Sivabalan
			Cisco Systems
			United States of America
			Email: msiva@cisco.com
			Imtiyaz Mohammad
			Arista Networks
			India
			Email: imtiyaz@arista.com
			Gaurav Dawra
			Cisco Systems
			United States of America
			Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
			Peng Shaofu
			ZTE Corporation
			China
			Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
			Steven Lin
			Calix
			United States of America
			Email: steven.lin@calix.com
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Stefano Previdi		Stefano Previdi
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Italy		Italy
	Email: stefano@previdi.net		Email: stefano@previdi.net
	Clarence Filsfils		Clarence Filsfils
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	Brussels		Brussels
End of changes. 303 change blocks.
	763 lines changed or deleted		793 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.