Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path
draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity-07
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ran Chen , Yisong Liu , Ketan Talaulikar , Detao Zhao , Zafar Ali | ||
| Last updated | 2026-02-02 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity-07
SPRING Working Group R. Chen
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Liu
Expires: 6 August 2026 China Mobile
K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Zhao
ZTE Corporation
Z. Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2 February 2026
Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path
draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity-07
Abstract
An SR Policy comprises one or more candidate paths of which at a
given time one and only one may be active (i.e., installed in
forwarding plane and usable for steering of traffic). Each candidate
path, in turn, may have one or more segment lists of which one or
more may be active. When multiple segment lists are active, traffic
is load balanced over them. Currently, a candidate path is valid as
long as at least one of its segment lists is active. However, this
default validity criterion does not meet the requirements of some
scenarios.
This document defines the new candidate path validity criterion.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 August 2026.
Chen, et al. Expires 6 August 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path February 2026
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Validity of a Candidate Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Use Cases for Candidate Path Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
SR Policy architecture are specified in [RFC9256]. An SR Policy
comprises one or more candidate paths of which at a given time one
and only one may be active (i.e., installed in forwarding plane and
usable for steering of traffic). Each candidate path, in turn, may
have one or more segment lists of which one or more may be active.
When multiple segment lists are active, traffic is load balanced over
them. Currently, a candidate path is valid as long as at least one
of its segment lists is active. However, this default validity
criterion does not meet the requirements of some scenarios.
This document defines the new candidate path validity criterions
based on [RFC9256]. For the segment list invalidation rules, refer
to [RFC9256] and [I-D.liu-spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection].
This document does not change the segment list invalidation rules.
Chen, et al. Expires 6 August 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path February 2026
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Motivation
The candidate path validity criterion defined in [RFC9256] does not
meet the requirements of the following scenarios:
+------------------------+
+---------| SL1(Weight 1, 100Mbps) |
+----------------+ | +------------------------+
| CP1 (200Mbps) |------+
+----------------+ | +------------------------+
+---------| SL2(Weight 1, 100Mbps) |
+------------------------+
Figure 1
The SR Policy POL1 has two candidate paths: CP1 and CP2, and CP1 is
the active candidate path (it is valid and has the highest
Preference). The two segment lists (SL1 and SL2) of CP1 are
installed as the forwarding instantiation of the SR Policy POL1.
Each segment list is assumed to have a maximum capacity of 100Mbps.
CP1 carries a total of 200Mbps of traffic. Within POL1, flow-based
hashing is performed across each SL based on its relative weight.
With an equal weight assigned to each SL, the fraction of flows
steered into each SL is 50%, meaning each SL carries 100 Mbps of
traffic.
At this time, if one of the segment lists is determined to be invalid
by the rule defined in [RFC9256], the remaining segment list cannot
carry the full 200Mbps of traffic due to its capacity limit.
However, the CP1 remains the active candidate path according to
[RFC9256], as a candidate path is valid as long as it has at least
one valid segment list.
3. Validity of a Candidate Path
A headend MAY be informed about the validity control parameters of a
candidate path for an SR Policy <Color, Endpoint> by various means
including: via configuration, PCEP, or BGP. The detailed protocol
extension will be described in a separate document.
Chen, et al. Expires 6 August 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path February 2026
This document defines the following validity control parameters under
candidate path to control the validity judgment of candidate path:
* Minimum Valid Segment List(SL) Count: 8-bit value, The value is
0-0xff.
Indicates the minimum number of valid segment lists under the
active candidate path. When the number of valid segment lists
under candidate path is greater than or equal to this field, the
candidate path is considered valid.
A value of 0 indicates no requirement for minimum segment list
count.
A value of 0xff indicates that the candidate path is considered
valid only if all the segment lists are valid.
* Minimum Cumulative SL Weight: 32-bit value, The value is
0-0xffffffff.
Indicates the minimum value of the sum of the weights of the valid
segment list under the active candidate path.
When the sum of the weights of the valid segment lists under the
candidate path is greater than or equal to this field, the
candidate path is considered valid.
A value of 0 indicates no requirement for Minimum Cumulative SL
Weight.
A value of 0xffffffff indicates that the candidate path is
considered valid only if all the segment lists are valid.
candidate path is considered valid only if both validity control
parameters are satisfied.
If both the Minimum Valid SL Count and the Minimum Cumulative SL
Weight are set to 0, The validity of candidate paths must be
determined according to the mechanism defined in [RFC9256].
4. Use Cases for Candidate Path Validity
The following scenarios illustrate how the validity control
parameters of a candidate path defined in Section 3 address the
capacity and validity issues described in Section 2.
Chen, et al. Expires 6 August 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path February 2026
* Minimum valid SL count: Following the scenario in Section 2, where
the aggregate traffic load is 200 Mbps and each SL has a capacity
of 100 Mbps, an operator can configure a "Minimum Valid SL Count"
of 2. In this case, the candidate path is rendered invalid as
soon as any single segment list becomes invalid. This prevents
the candidate path from remaining active when its capacity is
insufficient to carry the full traffic load.
* Minimum Cumulative SL Weight: Alternatively, an operator can
assign a weight of 1 to both SL1 and SL2 to reflect their
identical 100 Mbps capacity. By setting the "Minimum Cumulative
SL Weight" to 2, the operator ensures the candidate path remains
active only when the aggregate capacity meets the 200 Mbps demand.
If one segment list becomes invalid, the sum of the weights of the
remaining valid SLs becomes 1, falling below the threshold.
Consequently, CP1 is declared invalid, thus preventing the
steering of 200 Mbps of traffic into a single 100 Mbps link.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations of segment routing in [RFC9256] are
applicable to this document.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Samuel Sidor ,
Changwang Lin, Alvaro Retana and Imtiyaz Mohammad for their review
and discussion of this document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Chen, et al. Expires 6 August 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Validity of SR Policy Candidate Path February 2026
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.liu-spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection]
Liu, Y., Lin, C., Peng, S., Chen, R., Ali, Z., Mishra, G.
S., and Y. Qiu, "Flexible Candidate Path Selection of SR
Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-liu-
spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection-13, 21 January
2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-
spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection-13>.
Authors' Addresses
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: [email protected]
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: [email protected]
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Detao Zhao
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: [email protected]
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: [email protected]
Chen, et al. Expires 6 August 2026 [Page 6]