|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 9819
Last modified on Saturday, July 19th, 2025
 Permanent link to RFC 9819
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 9819
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 9819
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Talaulikar
Request for Comments: 9819 K. Raza
Updates: 9252 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track J. Rabadan
ISSN: 2070-1721 Nokia
W. Lin
Juniper Networks
July 2025
Argument Signaling for BGP Services in Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
 Abstract
RFC 9252 defines procedures and messages for BGP overlay services for
Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6), including Layer 3 Virtual Private
Network (L3VPN), Ethernet VPN (EVPN), and global Internet routing.
This document updates RFC 9252 and provides more detailed
specifications for the signaling and processing of SRv6 Segment
Identifier advertisements for BGP overlay service routes associated
with SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors that support arguments.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9819.
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
1.1. Requirements Language
2. Advertisement of SRv6 SID and Arguments
3. End.DT2M Signaling for EVPN ESI Filtering
3.1. Advertisement of Ethernet A-D per ES Route
3.2. Advertisement of Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route
3.3. Processing at Ingress PE
4. Backward Compatibility
5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
SRv6 refers to Segment Routing instantiated over the IPv6 data plane
[RFC 8402]. An SRv6 Segment Identifier (SID) [RFC 8402] can be
associated with one of the service-specific SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors
on the advertising Provider Edge (PE) router for Layer 3 Virtual
Private Network (L3VPN), global Internet routing, and Ethernet VPN
(EVPN) services as defined in [RFC 8986]. Such SRv6 SIDs are referred
to as SRv6 Service SIDs. [RFC 9252] defines the procedures and
messages for the signaling of BGP overlay services including L3VPN,
EVPN, and Internet services using SRv6.
For certain EVPN services, Section 4.12 of [RFC 8986] introduced the
End.DT2M SRv6 Endpoint Behavior, which utilizes arguments (i.e.,
Arg.FE2). [RFC 9252] subsequently specified the encoding and
signaling procedures for the SRv6 SID and its associated argument via
the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route (EVPN Route Type 3) and
the Ethernet A-D (Auto-Discovery) per ES route (EVPN Route Type 1),
respectively. However, during implementation and interoperability
testing, it was observed that the specifications outlined in
[RFC 9252] lack sufficient detail, leading to ambiguities in
interpretation and implementation.
This document updates [RFC 9252] by providing additional details and
clarifications regarding the signaling of SRv6 Service SIDs
associated with SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors that utilize arguments.
While the focus is primarily on the signaling of the End.DT2M SRv6
Endpoint Behavior via the Ethernet A-D per ES route and Inclusive
Multicast Ethernet Tag route, the procedures described herein are
also applicable to other similar SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors with
arguments that may be signaled using BGP.
Section 6.3 of [RFC 9252] specifies that the SRv6 Service SID used in
the data plane is derived by applying a bitwise logical-OR operation
between the SID with an argument signaled via the Ethernet A-D per ES
route and the SID with the 'Locator + Function' components signaled
via the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route. However, this
approach assumes a uniform SID structure across all SIDs advertised
via the Ethernet A-D per ES route and Inclusive Multicast Ethernet
Tag route. This assumption is not universally valid, and the
procedures in this document remove this restriction, ensuring greater
flexibility in SRv6 SID signaling.
The descriptions and examples presented in this document do not
utilize the Transposition Scheme (see Section 4 of [RFC 9252]).
Consequently, the Transposition Offset (TPOS-O) and Transposition
Length (TPOS-L) are set to zero, and references to MPLS label fields
where the function or argument portions may be transposed are
omitted. However, the same examples could be applied with the
Transposition Scheme. This document does not introduce any
modifications to the use of the Transposition Scheme in the signaling
of EVPN routes. Implementations are expected to adhere to the
procedures and recommendations specified in [RFC 9252] concerning the
Transposition Scheme.
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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Advertisement of SRv6 SID and Arguments
Section 3.1 of [RFC 8986] defines the format of an SRv6 SID as
consisting of three components: Locator (LOC), Function (FUNC), and
Argument (ARG). For SRv6 SIDs associated with SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors that do not support arguments, the ARG component is not
present. Consequently, all bits following the FUNC portion MUST be
set to zero, and the Argument Length (AL) MUST be zero.
Certain SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors (e.g., End.DT2M) support arguments.
As specified in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC 9252], the SRv6 SID Structure
Sub-Sub-TLV MUST be included when signaling an SRv6 SID corresponding
to an SRv6 Endpoint Behavior that supports argument. This ensures
that the receiving router can perform consistency verification of the
argument and correctly encode the ARG value within the SRv6 SID.
In certain use cases, the SRv6 SID can be signaled as a complete
structure, with the LOC:FUNC:ARG components fully encoded within the
SID. However, there are scenarios where the SRv6 SID, consisting
only of the LOC:FUNC portion, is signaled in one advertisement, while
the ARG value is either signaled through a separate advertisement or
learned via an alternative mechanism. It is the responsibility of
the SRv6 source node to append the ARG component to the LOC:FUNC
portion, thereby constructing the complete SRv6 SID (LOC:FUNC:ARG).
This fully formed SID can then be utilized in the data plane, either
as the IPv6 destination address of a packet or as a segment within
the Segment Routing Header (SRH) [RFC 8754], as required.
Since arguments may be optional, the SRv6 endpoint node that owns the
SID MUST advertise the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV along with the
LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 SID to indicate whether arguments are
supported for that specific SID. A zero AL value indicates that the
node does not accept an argument for the given SRv6 SID. Conversely,
a non-zero AL value specifies the size of the supported argument,
along with the Locator Block Length (LBL), Locator Node Length (LNL),
and Function Length (FL) parameters, which define the offset from
which the node expects the ARG to be encoded. All bits beyond LBL +
LNL + FL + AL MUST be set to zero.
The advertisement of the ARG value may be performed either by the
node that owns the SRv6 SID and is advertising the LOC:FUNC portion
of that SID or by another node/mechanism. The advertisement of the
ARG value MUST specify the size of the argument, its value, and the
associated SRv6 Endpoint Behavior of the SID. Additionally, the
specification of the association of the ARG advertisement with the
corresponding SID(s) for which the argument applies is REQUIRED.
3. End.DT2M Signaling for EVPN ESI Filtering
As specified in [RFC 9252], the LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 SID with
End.DT2M behavior is signaled via the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet
Tag route, while the Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) Filtering ARG
(denoted as Arg.FE2 in [RFC 8986]) is signaled via the Ethernet A-D
per ES route. The following subsections provide a more detailed
specification of the signaling and processing mechanisms compared to
[RFC 9252].
ESI Filtering is a split-horizon mechanism used for multihoming
[RFC 7432] or Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) procedures [RFC 8317]. ESI
Filtering is not applicable in scenarios where:
* No E-Tree leaf Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or Multicast (BUM)
traffic exists,
* No multihoming is present,
* No split-horizon mechanism is required, or
* The "Local Bias" method (as specified in [RFC 8365]) is employed.
In this document, "ESI Filtering" is used as a general reference to
the procedure performed by the disposition Provider Edge (PE) router
to prevent forwarding of BUM traffic to local Ethernet Segments or
local leaf attachment circuits, based on the presence of the ESI
Filtering ARG.
The signaling and processing descriptions outlined in the following
sections also apply to End.DT2M behavior flavors designed for SRv6
SID list compression [RFC 9800]. In deployments where a mix of
compressed and uncompressed SIDs is present, the behaviors advertised
in the Ethernet A-D per ES routes and Inclusive Multicast Ethernet
Tag routes MAY consist of a combination of compressed and
uncompressed End.DT2M behavior flavors. The procedures in this
document remain valid for such deployments provided that the AL
consistency checks between the Ethernet A-D per ES route and
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route, as described in the following
subsections, are satisfied.
3.1. Advertisement of Ethernet A-D per ES Route
Ethernet A-D per ES routes, as defined in [RFC 7432], are utilized to
enable split-horizon filtering and fast convergence in multihoming
scenarios. Additionally, Ethernet A-D per ES routes facilitate
egress filtering of BUM traffic originating from a leaf, as specified
in [RFC 8317].
When ESI Filtering is not in use, no ESI Filtering ARG is required to
be conveyed. However, for backward compatibility and consistency
with [RFC 9252], the advertisement of this route SHOULD include the
BGP Prefix-SID attribute with an SRv6 L2 Service TLV carrying an SRv6
Service SID set to ::0 in the SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV, with the
SRv6 Endpoint Behavior set to End.DT2M. Since the End.DT2M behavior
supports the use of an ARG, an SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV MUST be
included. As no ARG value is required to be signaled in this case,
the AL MUST be set to 0.
The following is an example representation of the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute encoding in this case:
BGP Prefix-SID attribute:
SRv6 L2 Service TLV:
SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV:
SID: ::
Behavior: End.DT2M
SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV:
LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 0, TPOS-L: 0, TPOS-O: 0
Figure 1: Ethernet A-D per ES Route Without ARG for ESI Filtering
When ESI Filtering is in use, the advertisement of this route MUST
include the BGP Prefix-SID attribute with an SRv6 L2 Service TLV
carrying the SRv6 Service SID that contains the ESI Filtering ARG
value within the SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV (when not using the
Transposition Scheme), with the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior set to
End.DT2M. Since the End.DT2M behavior supports the use of an ARG, an
SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV MUST be included. Additionally, as a
non-zero ARG value is being signaled, the AL MUST be set to the size
of the ARG, and the size SHOULD be a multiple of 8 to ensure
consistency across implementations for ease of operations. The SRv6
SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV MUST set the LBL, LNL, and FL fields with
values that indicate the offset at which the ARG value is encoded
within the 128-bit SRv6 SID.
The following is an example representation of the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute encoding in this scenario for a 16-bit argument value of
'aaaa':
BGP Prefix-SID attribute:
SRv6 L2 Service TLV:
SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV:
SID: ::aaaa:0:0:0
Behavior: End.DT2M
SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV:
LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 16, TPOS-L: 0, TPOS-O: 0
Figure 2: Ethernet A-D per ES Route with ARG for ESI Filtering
In the examples above, it would have been possible to set the LBL,
LNL, and FL values to 0 and to encode the SRv6 SID as either ::0 or
aaaa::. However, such an encoding would not be backward compatible
with [RFC 9252], as further detailed in Section 4.
Therefore, it is REQUIRED that the LBL, LNL, and FL values be set in
accordance with the SID structure for End.DT2M SRv6 Service SIDs,
ensuring compliance with [RFC 9252].
3.2. Advertisement of Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route
The Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route, as defined in [RFC 7432],
is used to advertise multicast traffic reachability information via
Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) to all other PE routers within a given
EVPN instance. When utilizing SRv6 transport, the advertisement of
this route MUST include the BGP Prefix-SID attribute with an SRv6 L2
Service TLV to indicate the use of SRv6.
Regardless of whether ESI Filtering is in use, the SRv6 Service SID
MUST include only the LOC:FUNC portion within the SRv6 SID
Information Sub-TLV (when not utilizing the Transposition Scheme),
with the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior set to End.DT2M. Since the End.DT2M
behavior supports the use of an ARG, an SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-
TLV MUST be included. The LBL, LNL, and FL fields MUST be set to
indicate the structure of the SRv6 Service SID being advertised.
When ESI Filtering is not in use, no ARG is expected to be received
by the router along with the advertised SRv6 Service SID. Therefore,
the AL MUST be set to 0.
The following is an example representation of the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute encoding in this case:
BGP Prefix-SID attribute:
SRv6 L2 Service TLV:
SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV:
SID: 2001:db8:1:fbd1::
Behavior: End.DT2M
SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV:
LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 0, TPOS-L: 0, TPOS-O: 0
Figure 3: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route Without ESI
Filtering
When ESI Filtering is in use, the router expects to receive traffic
in the data path to the SRv6 Service SID that it has signaled along
with the ARG portion embedded in it. Consequently, the AL MUST be
set to the size of the ARG supported by the advertising router for
the specific SRv6 Service SID. The AL value is unique per End.DT2M
behavior signaled by the egress PE. Therefore, the egress PE MUST
use the same AL for all local Ethernet Segments with attachment
circuits within the same broadcast domain.
The following is an example representation of the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute encoding for this scenario with a 16-bit argument:
BGP Prefix-SID attribute:
SRv6 L2 Service TLV:
SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV:
SID: 2001:db8:1:fbd1::
Behavior: End.DT2M
SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV:
LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 16, TPOS-L: 0, TPOS-O: 0
Figure 4: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route with ESI Filtering
When ESI Filtering is in use, the advertising router MUST ensure that
the AL signaled in the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route is
equal to the AL signaled in the corresponding Ethernet A-D per ES
route.
3.3. Processing at Ingress PE
An ingress PE receives the LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 Service SID
to be used for BUM traffic through Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag
route advertisements.
When ESI Filtering is not in use, the SRv6 Service SID to be used
consists solely of the LOC:FUNC portion received via the Inclusive
Multicast Ethernet Tag route.
When ESI Filtering is in use, the ESI Filtering ARG of the SRv6
Service SID is signaled through the Ethernet A-D per ES route. The
ARG, in combination with the LOC:FUNC portion received via the
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route, forms the SRv6 Service SID to
be used.
Since the LOC:FUNC and ARG portions of the SRv6 Service SID are
signaled via different route advertisements, there may be cases where
the ingress PE receives inconsistent AL values from the two route
types. If the ingress PE expects ESI Filtering to be in use (i.e.,
when forwarding BUM traffic to other PEs attached to a shared
Ethernet Segment) but does not receive a usable ARG value during
processing, it SHOULD log a message to facilitate troubleshooting.
The ingress PE router MUST follow the processing steps outlined below
when handling SRv6 Service SID advertisements:
1. If AL=0 is signaled via the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag
route, then the egress PE either does not support ESI Filtering
or does not require an ESI Filtering ARG for the specific SID.
In this case, the SRv6 Service SID is formed using only the
LOC:FUNC portion, and all bits after LBL + LNL + FL MUST be set
to zero for encoding on the data path. Additionally, the router
MUST ignore the SID value and its SID structure advertised in the
corresponding Ethernet A-D per ES route.
2. If a non-zero AL is signaled via the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet
Tag route, then the matching Ethernet A-D per ES route for the
Ethernet Segment is located and the presence of an SRv6 SID
advertisement with the End.DT2M behavior is verified.
a. If the presence of such a SRv6 SID is not verified, or if the
AL is zero in the Ethernet A-D per ES route, then no usable
ARG value is available. The SRv6 Service SID MUST be formed
as described in (1) above.
b. If the AL values in the Ethernet A-D per ES route and
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route are both non-zero but
not equal, then no usable ARG value is available. This
inconsistency in signaling from the egress PE indicates a
configuration error. To prevent potential looping, BUM
traffic MUST NOT be forwarded for such routes from the
specific Ethernet Segment. Implementations SHOULD log an
error message for troubleshooting this condition.
c. If the AL values in the Ethernet A-D per ES route and
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route are both non-zero and
equal, then the ARG value from the Ethernet A-D per ES route
is considered valid. This ARG value MUST be encoded within
the SRv6 SID (LOC:FUNC) at the ARG offset as specified in the
SID structure (i.e., LBL + LNL + FL) in the Inclusive
Multicast Ethernet Tag route. All bits beyond LBL + LNL + FL
+ AL MUST be set to zero.
Using the procedures above with the examples in Figures 1 and 3, the
SRv6 Service SID encoding for the data plane without an ESI Filtering
ARG is as follows:
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route:
SID: 2001:db8:1:fbd1::
Structure: LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 0
SRv6 Service SID Encoded for Datapath: 2001:db8:1:fbd1::
Figure 5: SRv6 Service SID Encoding for Data Plane Without ARG
Using the procedures above with the examples in Figures 2 and 4, the
SRv6 Service SID encoding for the data plane along with an ESI
Filtering ARG is as follows:
Ethernet A-D per ES route:
SID: ::aaaa:0:0:0
Structure: LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 16
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route:
SID: 2001:db8:1:fbd1::
Structure: LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 16
SRv6 Service SID Encoded for Datapath: 2001:db8:1:fbd1:aaaa::
Figure 6: SRv6 Service SID Encoding for Data Plane with ARG
Figure 7 provides another example that illustrates the signaling and
processing of multiple bridge domains in a deployment design.
+--------------------------------+
| |
PE1 | |
+---------+ |
BUM on BD1 | +-----+ | |
+----------------> | BD1 |-------------+ |
| | +-----+ | | |
| BUM on BD2 | +-----+ | v PE3 |
| +--------------> | BD2 |-------+ +---------+
| | +-----| +-----+ | | | +-----+ |
+----+ | +---------+ v ^ | | BD1 |-----CE31
| | | | | | +-----+ |
|CE12|-----+ ESI-1 | ^ | | +-----+ |
| |-----+ | | | | | BD2 |-----CE32
+----+ | +---------+ ^ RT3 RT3 | +-----+ |
+-----| +-----+ | | dt2m dt2m +---------+
| | BD1 | | | BD2 BD1 |
| +-----+ | | FL:16 FL:32 |
| +-----+ | RT1 |
| | BD2 | | ESI-1 |
| +-----+ | AL:16 |
+---------+ |
PE2 | |
| |
| |
+-------------------------------+
Ethernet A-D per ES route for ESI-1:
SID: ::aaaa:0:0:0
Structure: LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 16
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route from BD1:
SID: 2001:db8:1:fbd1:fbd1:
Structure: LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 32, AL: 16
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route from BD2:
SID: 2001:db8:1:fbd2::
Structure: LBL: 32, LNL: 16, FL: 16, AL: 16
SRv6 Service SID for datapath from ingress PE1 to egress PE2 on BD1:
2001:db8:1:fbd1:fbd1:aaaa::
SRv6 Service SID for datapath from ingress PE1 to egress PE2 on BD2:
2001:db8:1:fbd2:aaaa::
Figure 7: Example with Multiple Bridge Domains
4. Backward Compatibility
Existing implementations that rely on the bitwise logical-OR
operation, as specified in Section 6.3 of [RFC 9252], function
correctly only when the SID structures of the two EVPN route types
are identical.
Backward compatibility with implementations performing the bitwise
logical-OR operation is maintained when the Inclusive Multicast
Ethernet Tag route and its corresponding Ethernet A-D per ES route
advertise SIDs with the same SID structure, as outlined in Sections
3.1 and 3.2.
However, when the SID structures of the two route types are not
identical, the bitwise logical-OR operation specified in [RFC 9252]
cannot be applied. Instead, the alternative method specified in
Section 3.3 MUST be used to correctly derive the SRv6 Service SID in
such cases.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
This document provides a more detailed specification related to the
signaling and processing of SRv6 SID advertisements for SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors with arguments. As such, it does not introduce any new
security considerations over and above those already covered by
[RFC 9252].
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7432>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[RFC 8317] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Drake, J., Uttaro, J.,
Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree)
Support in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone
Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 8317, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8317,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8317>.
[RFC 8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8402>.
[RFC 8986] 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/RFC 8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8986>.
[RFC 9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9252>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC 8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8365>.
[RFC 8754] 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/RFC 8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8754>.
[RFC 9800] Cheng, W., Ed., Filsfils, C., Li, Z., Decraene, B., and F.
Clad, Ed., "Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding",
RFC 9800, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9800, June 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9800>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Jayshree Subramanian, Sonal
Agarwal, Swadesh Agrawal, Dongling Duan, Luc André Burdet, Patrice
Brissette, Senthil Sathappan, Erel Ortacdag, Neil Hart, Will
Lockhart, and Vinod Prabhu for their review of the document and input
on aspects related to the signaling of the End.DT2M SRv6 Endpoint
Behavior that required clarification. The authors thank Jeffrey
Zhang for his shepherd review and suggestions for improving the
document. The authors would also like to thank Gunter Van de Velde
for his extensive review and suggestions for improving the
readability of the document.
Authors' Addresses
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
India
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems
Canada
Email: skraza@cisco.com
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
United States of America
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Wen Lin
Juniper Networks
United States of America
Email: wlin@juniper.net
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 29103 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Saturday, July 19th, 2025
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
