Segment Routing Policy Extension for Network Resource Partition
draft-jiang-spring-sr-policy-nrp-05
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 (candidate for spring WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Shengnan Yue , Ran Chen , Jie Dong , Changwang Lin , Jiang Wenying | ||
| Last updated | 2026-01-19 (Latest revision 2025-12-18) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Call For Adoption By WG Issued | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-jiang-spring-sr-policy-nrp-05
SPRING S. Yue
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track R. Chen
Expires: 21 June 2026 ZTE Corporation
J. Dong
Huawei Technologies
C. Lin
New H3C Technologies
W. Jiang
China Mobile
18 December 2025
Segment Routing Policy Extension for Network Resource Partition
draft-jiang-spring-sr-policy-nrp-05
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) Policy is a set of candidate paths, each
consisting of one or more segment lists and the associated
information. A Network Resource Partition (NRP), is a subset of the
resources and associated policies in the underlay network. In SR
networks with multiple NRPs, an SR Policy can be associated with a
particular NRP. In that case, SR Policy can be used for steering and
forwarding traffic which is mapped to the NRP, so that the packets
can be processed with the subset of network resources and policy of
the NRP for guaranteed performance. Thus the association between SR
Policy and NRP needs to be specified.
This document defines extensions to the SR Policy Architecture to
allow the association of the SR Policy candidate paths with NRPs.
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 21 June 2026.
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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. Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SR Policy Extension for NRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. NRP Selector ID of a Candidate Path . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Candidate Path Validity Verification . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Steering into an SR Policy with NRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
A Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy) [RFC9256] is a set of candidate
paths, each consisting of one or more segment lists and the
associated information. The headend node is said to steer a flow
into an SR Policy. The packets steered into an SR Policy have an
ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy written into
them. [RFC8660] describes the representation and processing of this
ordered list of segments as an MPLS label stack for SR-MPLS, while
[RFC8754] and [RFC8986] describe the same for Segment Routing over
IPv6 (SRv6) with the use of the Segment Routing Header (SRH).
[RFC9543] provides the definition of IETF network slice for use
within the IETF and discusses the general framework for requesting
and operating IETF Network Slices, their characteristics, and the
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
necessary system components and interfaces. It also introduces the
concept Network Resource Partition (NRP), which is a subset of the
resources and associated policies in the underlay network.
In SR networks, an NRP can be realized using NRP-specific resource-
aware segments as defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments]. With this approach, for
each NRP, a separate set of resource-aware SIDs need to be assigned,
thus the amount of SR SIDs would be proportional to the number of
NRPs.
As described in [I-D.ietf-teas-nrp-scalability], one scalable data
plane approach to support network slicing is to carry a dedicated NRP
Selector ID in the data packet to identify the NRP the packet belongs
to, so that the packet can be processed and forwarded using the
subset of network resources allocated to the NRP.
In SR networks with multiple NRPs, an SR Policy can be associated
with a particular NRP. In that case, SR Policy can be used for
steering and forwarding traffic which is mapped to the NRP, so that
the packets can be processed with the subset of network resources and
policy of the NRP for guaranteed performance. Thus the association
between SR Policy and NRP needs to be specified.
This document defines extensions to the SR Policy Architecture for
associating SR Policy with NRP.
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. Use Case
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
----------------------------------------
( |PE|.............|PE|.............|PE| )
( -- SR Policy-1 -- SR Policy-1 -- )<---------+
---------------------------------------- |
SR Policy-1 with NRP 1 |
|
---------------------------------------- |
( |PE|..............................|PE| ) |
( -- SR Policy-2 -- )<-------+
---------------------------------------- |
SR Policy-2 with NRP 2 |
|
---------------------------------------------- |
( |PE|.....-.....|PE|...... |PE|.......|PE| ) |
( -- |P| -- :-...:-- -..:-- ) |
( : -:.............|P|.........|P| )--+
( -......................:-:..- - )
( |P|.........................|P|......: )
( - - )
----------------------------------------------
Underlay Network
Figure 1
In each NRP for network slices, the connectivity among PEs is
achieved by SR Policies. The segment lists of these SR Policies
composed with segments associated with the dedicated data plane NRP
Selector ID. Traffics are steered into the SR Policies, so that the
resources allocated to the corresponding NRPs will be used for
forwarding.
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
Physical Interface 1
+---------------------------------------+
| |
| Layer-3 Sub-interface 1-1: 1Gbps |
|=======================================|
|>>>>>> Queue 1-1: NRP-1, 100Mbps >>>>>>|
|>>>>>> Queue 1-2: NRP-2, 200Mbps >>>>>>|
|>>>>>> ... >>>>>>|
|=======================================|
| |
| Layer-3 Sub-interface 1-2: 2Gbps |
|====================================== |
|>>>>>> Queue 1-1: NRP-1, 100Mbps >>>>>>|
|>>>>>> Queue 1-2: NRP-2, 200Mbps >>>>>>|
|>>>>>> ... >>>>>>|
|=======================================|
| |
+---------------------------------------+
Underlay Network
Figure 2
As shown in the example in Figure 2, the bandwidth resource of a
physical interface is partitioned in two NRPs.
The NRPs are sliced by HQoS queues with dedicated bandwidth under the
layer-3 sub-interface. NRP needs to be identified by using an extra
dimension. On both MPLS-SR and SRv6 data plane, there are several
options for realizing NRP Selector ID, such as
[I-D.ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id],
[I-D.cheng-spring-srv6-encoding-network-sliceid], and
[I-D.li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]. As mentioned above, the traffics
of network slice are forwarded according to the segment list of SR
Policy. Firstly, the outgoing interface associated segment will be
the layer-3 sub-interface. Then, the HQoS queue will be selected
according to the NRP Selector ID carried in the packets, and the
bandwidth resource of NRP will be used.
3. SR Policy Extension for NRP
As defined in [RFC9256], an SR Policy is associated with one or more
candidate paths. A candidate path is the unit for signaling of an SR
Policy to a headend via protocol extensions like the Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC8664]
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] or BGP SR Policy [RFC9830].
A candidate path consists of one or multiple segment lists. The
segment lists are used for load balancing purpose. When an SR Policy
is associated with an NRP, the SR Policy is instantiated using
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
candidate paths which are built within a particular NRP. Hence the
association between SR Policy and NRP is specified at the candidate
path level. All the segment lists of the candidate path are
associated with the same NRP and share the set of resources of the
NRP.
The candidate paths of an SR Policy determine the path that packets
will traverse, while NRP reserves resources along the candidate path
designated by the SR Policy. Through the integration of SR Policy
and NRP, it ensures both the forwarding path and resource reservation
along the candidate path.
3.1. NRP Selector ID of a Candidate Path
The NRP Selector ID of a candidate path is utilized to identify the
resources corresponding to the forwarding paths of all segment lists
within an SR Policy. It is a 32-bit value serving as an identifier
for the Network Resource Partition. The NRP Selector ID associated
with a candidate path of an SR Policy from a specific Protocol-Origin
as specified below:
* When provisioning is via configuration, it is specific to the
implementation's configuration model.
* When signaling is via PCEP, the method to uniquely signal an
individual candidate path along with its NRP Selector ID is
described in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-nrp].
* When signaling is via BGP SR Policy, the method to uniquely signal
an individual candidate path along with its NRP Selector ID is
described in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp]. It can be collected
via BGP-LS [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp].
Under the same Candidate Path, all segment lists must share the same
NRP Selector ID. When a candidate path of an SR Policy is
instantiated within an NRP, a network-wide data plane NRP Selector ID
is used to identify the resources of the NRP. While different
candidate paths can share the same NRP Selector IDs, the proposed
mechanism allows for different candidate paths within a single SR
Policy to be associated with different NRPs. However, in typical
network scenarios, it is generally expected that the association
between an SR Policy and an NRP remains consistent. In such cases,
all candidate paths of a single SR Policy SHOULD be associated with
the same NRP.
By associating NRP Selector IDs with Candidate Paths, the assurance
of both the SR Policy's path and its resources is achieved. The
process involves the following steps:
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
* Planning the network topology resources and assigning NRP Selector
IDs.
* At the headend node, performing path arrangement. During the path
planning process of the SR Policy, resources are considered for
different candidate paths, and NRP Selector IDs are configured
under each Candidate path to establish the association between the
path and resources.
3.2. Candidate Path Validity Verification
A candidate path is considered usable when it is valid, with the
validation rules outlined in Section 5 of [RFC9256]. When a
Candidate Path contains an NRP Selector ID, a segment list of a
candidate path may be declared invalid if the resources corresponding
to the NRP Selector ID on the segment list path do not exist. The
successful reservation of NRP resources along the entire path can be
verified through OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance)
detection mechanisms. Additionally, if the head-end is unable to
perform path resolution for the first SID into one or more outgoing
interfaces and next-hops, along with the corresponding NRP Selector
ID resources, the status of that segment list is set to invalid.
When running fast detection protocols, such as Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD), the headend may compute and validate
backup candidate paths and provision them into the forwarding plane
as a backup for the active path. In such cases, it is necessary to
include NRP encapsulation to detect the NRP resources along the path,
ensuring the availability of both the path and resources.
3.3. Summary
For an SR Policy associated with an NRP, each of its candidate paths
must be associated with an NRP. The NRP Selector ID linked to each
candidate path can be the same or different. All segment lists of
the candidate path are associated with the same NRP and share the set
of resources allocated to that NRP.
In summary, the information model is the following:
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
SR Policy POL1
Candidate Path CP1
Preference 200
NRP Selector ID 100
Segment List 1 <SID11...SID1i>, Weight 1
Segment List 2 <SID21...SID2j>, Weight 1
Segment List 3 <SID31...SID3k>, Weight 1
Candidate Path CP2
Preference 100
NRP Selector ID 200
Segment List 4 <SID41...SID4i>, Weight 1
Segment List 5 <SID51...SID5j>, Weight 1
Segment List 6 <SID61...SID6k>, Weight 1
SR Policy POL1 has two Candidate Paths, CP1 and CP2. CP1 is the
active candidate path (valid and with the highest Preference). NRP
Selector ID 100 is configured under CP1, while NRP Selector ID 200 is
configured under CP2. The three segment lists of CP1 with NRP
Selector ID 100 are installed as the forwarding instantiation of SR
Policy POL1. NRP Selector ID 100 needs to be configured and
resources reserved on the paths traversed by segment list 1, segment
list 2, and segment list 3. When traffic is steered on POL1 and
flow-based hashed on segment list [SID11...SID1i], NRP-100 is added
into the data packet, and forwarding is based on the resources
pointed to by NRP-100.
4. Steering into an SR Policy with NRP
The method of traffic steering aligns with the description in
Section 8 of [RFC9256]. If the SR Policy candidate path selected as
the best candidate path is associated with an NRP, the headend node
of the SR Policy SHOULD encapsulate both the segment list and the
data plane identifier of the associated NRP Selector ID to the header
of packets steered to the SR Policy. The segment list is used to
instruct the path the packets need to traverse, and the NRP Selector
ID is used by each node along the path to identify the set of local
network resources allocated to the NRP for the processing of the
packet. When an SR policy's active path contains an NRP Selector ID,
specific handling is necessary, as follows:
* When steering traffic to the SR policy through Per-Destination
Steering or Policy-Based Routing, after adding the corresponding
segment list encapsulation for the SR policy, NRP encapsulation is
also required. The specific NRP encapsulation details are outside
the scope of this document.
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
* Similarly, When steering traffic to the SR policy via the
BindingSID, after adding the segment list encapsulation for the SR
policy, NRP encapsulation is required. The specific NRP
encapsulation details are outside the scope of this document.
5. Operational Considerations
Operators can choose to deploy network slices at varying scales. The
use of either base NRP Selector ID or resource-aware SR segments for
specific service is based on operators' local policy.
Resource-aware segments require to introduce additional SR-MPLS SIDs
or SRv6 Locators/SIDs for different subsets of network resources.
This would increase the amount of SR SIDs to be managed, and would
also increase the amount of state to be maintained by network nodes.
Althougth with the SR paradigmn, per-path state can be avoided in the
network, operators need to be aware of the additional cost of
introducing resource-aware segments, and provide careful planning of
the resource groups, so that the resource-aware segments can meet the
service requirements without introducing unacceptable complexity to
network operation and management.
As the number of required network slice services increases, more NRPs
may be needed, and when data plane scalability is a primary concern,
a dedicated NRP Selector ID can be introduced in the data packet to
decouple the resource-specific identifiers from the topology and
path-specific identifiers in the data plane, thereby reducing the
number of IP addresses or SR SIDs needed to support a large number of
NRPs.
6. Security Considerations
By default, SR operates within a trusted domain. The security
considerations described in [RFC8402] and [RFC9256] apply to this
document.
The NRP to which an SR Policy is associated with is critical for
network resource isolation. Misconfiguration or error in setting the
NRP ID of an SR Policy can result in the forwarding of packets in an
undesired NRP, which may lead to the compromise in network resource
isolation.
When the NRP related information is advertised via the control plane
(e.g., in BGP, BGP-LS, or PCEP), it is important to make sure the NRP
information is not exposed to unwanted entities, otherwise it could
lead to attacks that compromise network resource isolation and may
impact the services carried using the SR Policy associated with the
NRP.
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. Contributors
The following people have contributed to this document:
Ran Pang
China Unicom
Beijing
China
Email: [email protected]
Ka Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: [email protected]
Wei Gao
CAICT
Beijing
China
Email: [email protected]
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.cheng-spring-srv6-encoding-network-sliceid]
Cheng, W., Ma, P., Ren, F., Lin, C., Gong, L., Zadok, S.,
Wu, M., and X. wang, "Encoding Network Slice
Identification for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-cheng-spring-srv6-encoding-network-sliceid-
11, 7 July 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-cheng-spring-srv6-encoding-network-sliceid-11>.
[I-D.ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]
Dong, J., Li, Z., Xie, C., Ma, C., and G. S. Mishra,
"Carrying Network Resource (NR) related Information in
IPv6 Extension Header", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-13, 20 October 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-
enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-13>.
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp]
Chen, R., Dong, J., Zhao, D., Gong, L., Zhu, Y., and R.
Pang, "SR Policies Extensions for Network Resource
Partition in BGP-LS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-02, 3 September 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
ls-sr-policy-nrp-02>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp]
Dong, J., Hu, Z., and R. Pang, "BGP SR Policy Extensions
for Network Resource Partition", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-04, 13
October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-04>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-nrp]
Dong, J., Fang, S., Xiong, Q., Peng, S., Han, L., Wang,
M., Beeram, V. P., and T. Saad, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Network
Resource Partition (NRP)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-nrp-00, 6 November 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-nrp-00>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Sidor, S., Barth, C., Peng,
S., and H. Bidgoli, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment
Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-
27, 4 April 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments]
Dong, J., Miyasaka, T., Zhu, Y., Qin, F., and Z. Li,
"Introducing Resource Awareness to SR Segments", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-resource-
aware-segments-16, 20 November 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
resource-aware-segments-16>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-nrp-scalability]
Dong, J., Li, Z., Gong, L., Yang, G., and G. S. Mishra,
"Scalability Considerations for Network Resource
Partition", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
teas-nrp-scalability-08, 20 October 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
nrp-scalability-08>.
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
[I-D.li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]
Li, Z. and J. Dong, "Carrying NRP related Information in
MPLS Packets", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-li-
mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-06, 7 July 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-mpls-
enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-06>.
[RFC9543] Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Rokui, R., Homma, S.,
Makhijani, K., Contreras, L., and J. Tantsura, "A
Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF
Technologies", RFC 9543, DOI 10.17487/RFC9543, March 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9543>.
[RFC9830] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes,
P., and D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in
BGP", RFC 9830, DOI 10.17487/RFC9830, September 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9830>.
Authors' Addresses
Shengnan Yue
China Mobile
China
Email: [email protected]
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: [email protected]
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: [email protected]
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: [email protected]
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SR Policy Extension for NRP December 2025
Wenying Jiang
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: [email protected]
Yue, et al. Expires 21 June 2026 [Page 14]