BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for SRv6 based Services
draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00

Interdomain Routing Working Group                                H. Wang
Internet-Draft                                                   J. Dong
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: 20 June 2024                                      K. Talaulikar
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                  T. Han
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                 R. Chen
                                                         ZTE Corporation
                                                        18 December 2023

        BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for SRv6 based Services
                         draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00

Abstract

   This document describes a mechanism to advertise IPv6 prefixes in BGP
   which are associated with Color Extended Communities to establish
   end-to-end intent-aware paths for SRv6 services.  Such IPv6 prefixes
   are called "Colored Prefixes", and this mechanism is called Colored
   Prefix Routing (CPR).  In SRv6 networks, the Colored prefixes are the
   SRv6 locators associated with different intent.  SRv6 services (e.g.
   SRv6 VPN services) with specific intent could be assigned with SRv6
   SIDs under the corresponding SRv6 locators, which are advertised as
   Colored prefixes.  This allows the SRv6 service traffic to be steered
   into end-to-end intent-aware paths simply based on the longest prefix
   matching of SRv6 Service SIDs to the Colored prefixes.  In data
   plane, dedicated transport label or SID for the inter-domain path is
   not needed, thus the encapsulation efficiency could be optimized.
   The existing IPv6 Address Family could be used for the advertisement
   of IPv6 Colored prefixes, thus this mechanism is easy to interoperate
   and can be deployed incrementally in multi-domain networks.

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."

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 June 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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
   2.  BGP CPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Colored Prefix Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Colored Prefix Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  CPR to Intra-domain Path Resolution . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  SRv6 Service Route Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  SRv6 Service Steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Encapsulation and Forwarding Processes  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  CPR over SRv6 Intra-Domain Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  CPR over MPLS Intra-Domain Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   With the trend of using one common network to carry multiple types of
   services, each service type can have different requirements on the
   network.  Such requirements are usually considered as the "intent" of
   the service or customer, and is represented as an abstract notion
   called "color".

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

   In network scenarios where the services are delivered across multiple
   network domains, there is need to provide the services with different
   end-to-end paths to meet the intent.
   [I-D.hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color] describes the problem
   statements and requirements for inter-domain intent-aware routing.

   The inter-domain path can be established using either MPLS or IP data
   plane.  In MPLS based networks, the traditional inter-domain approach
   is to establish an end-to-end LSP based on the BGP-LU mechanisms as
   defined in [RFC8277].  Each domain or area border node needs to
   perform label swapping for the end-to-end BGP-LU LSP, and encapsulate
   the label stack which are used for the intra-domain LSP within the
   subsequent network domain or area.

   While in IP based networks, the IP reachability information can be
   advertised to network nodes in different domains using BGP, so that
   all the domain or area border nodes have the routes to the IP
   prefixes of the destination node in other domains.  With the
   introduction of SRv6 [RFC8402] [RFC8754] [RFC8986], BGP services are
   assigned with SRv6 Service SIDs [RFC9252], which are routable in the
   network according to its SRv6 locator prefix.  Thus, the inter-domain
   path can be established simply based on the inter-domain prefix
   routes, and the BGP-LU inter-domain LSP mechanism is not necessary
   for IPv6 and SRv6 based networks.

   This document describes a mechanism to advertise IPv6 prefixes which
   are associated with Color Extended Community to establish end-to-end
   intent-aware paths for SRv6 services.  The color value in the Color
   Extended Community indicate the intent [RFC9256].  Such IPv6 prefixes
   are called "Colored Prefixes", and this mechanism is called Colored
   Prefix Routing (CPR).  In SRv6 networks, the Colored prefixes are the
   SRv6 locators associated with different intent.  BGP services over
   SRv6 (e.g.  SRv6 VPN services) [RFC9252] with specific intent could
   be assigned with SRv6 SIDs under the corresponding SRv6 locators,
   which are advertised as Colored prefixes.  This allows the SRv6
   service traffic to be steered (as specified in [RFC9252]) into end-
   to-end intent-aware paths simply based on the longest prefix matching
   of SRv6 Service SIDs to the Colored prefixes.  In data plane, the
   dedicated transport label or SID for the inter-domain path is not
   needed, thus the encapsulation efficiency could be optimized.  The
   existing IPv6 Address Family could be used for the advertisement of
   IPv6 Colored prefixes, which makes this mechanism easy to
   interoperate and can be deployed incrementally in multi-domain
   networks.

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

2.  BGP CPR

   This section describes the BGP CPR mechanisms.  More specifically,
   section 2.1 describes the allocation of the IPv6 Colored prefixes,
   section 2.2 describes the advertisement of Colored prefixes in BGP,
   section 2.3 describes the resolution of CPR routes to the intra-
   domain paths, and section 2.4 describes the steering of BGP SRv6
   services to CPR routes.

2.1.  Colored Prefix Allocation

   In SRv6 networks, an SRv6 locator needs to be allocated for each
   node.  In order to distinguish N different intent, a PE node needs to
   be allocated with N SRv6 locators, each of which is associated a
   different intent that is identified by a color value.  One way to
   achieve this is by splitting the base SRv6 locator of the node into N
   sub-locators, and these sub-locators are Colored prefixes associated
   with different intents.

   For example, node PE2 is allocated with the base SRv6 Locator
   2001:db8:aaaa:1::/64.  In order to provide 16 different intents, this
   base SRv6 Locator is split into 16 sub-locators from
   2001:db8:aaaa:1:0000::/68 to 2001:db8:aaaa:1:F000::/68, each of these
   sub-locators is associated with a different intent, such as low-
   delay, high-bandwidth, etc.

2.2.  Colored Prefix Advertisement

   After the allocation of Colored prefixes on a PE node, routes to
   these Colored prefixes need to be advertised both in the local domain
   and also to other domains using BGP, so that the BGP SRv6 services
   routes could be resolved using the corresponding CPR route.

   In a multi-domain IPv6 network, the IPv6 unicast Address Family/
   Subsequent Address Family (AFI/SAFI = 2/1) [RFC2545] is used for the
   advertisement of the Colored prefix routes.  The color extended
   community [RFC9012] is carried with the Colored prefix route with the
   color value indicating the intent [RFC9256].  The procedure of
   Colored prefix advertisement is described using an example with the
   following topology:

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

                       Consistent Color Domain:
                               C1, C2, ...
     +--------------+        +--------------+        +-------------+
     |              |        |              |        |             |
     |        [ASBR11]---[ASBR21]      [ASBR23]---[ASBR31]         |
 --[PE1] [P1]       |  X     |    [P2]      |   X    |     [P3]  [PE3]--
     |        [ASBR12]---[ASBR22]      [ASBR24]---[ASBR32]         |
     |              |        |              |        |             |
     +--------------+        +--------------+        +-------------+
           AS1                     AS2                     AS3

  Colored Prefixes of PE3:
  Low delay: 2001:db8:aaaa:1:1000::/68
  high bandwidth: 2001:db8:aaaa:1:2000::/68
  ...
        Figure 1. Example Topology for CPR Route Illustration

   Assume PE3 is provisioned with two different Colored prefixes CLP-1
   and CLP-2 for two different intent such as "low-delay" and "high-
   bandwidth" respectively.  In this example, It is assumed that the
   color representing a specific intent is consistent through all the
   domains.

   *  PE3 originates BGP IPv6 unicast (AFI/SAFI=2/1) route for the
      Colored prefixes PE3:CL1:: and PE3:CL2::. Each route should carry
      the corresponding color extended community C1 or C2.  PE3 also
      advertises a route for the base SRv6 Locator prefix PE3:BL, and
      there is no color extended community carried with this route.

   *  ASBR31 and ASBR32 receive the CPR routes of PE3, and advertise the
      CPR routes further to ASBR23 and ASBR24 with next-hop set to
      itself.

   *  ASBR23 and ASBR24 receive the CPR routes of PE3.  Since the color-
      to-intent mapping in AS2 is consistent with that in AS3, the Color
      Extended Community in the received CPR routes are kept unchanged.
      ASBR23 and ASBR 24 advertise the CPR routes further in AS2 with
      the next-hop set to itself.

   *  The behavior of ASBR21 and ASBR22 are similar to the behavior of
      ASBR31 and ASBR32.

   *  The behavior of ASBR11 and ASBR12 are similar to the behavior of
      ASBR31 and ASBR32.

   In normal case, the color value in the color extended community
   associated with the CPR route is consistent through all the domains.
   While in some special cases, one intent may be represented as

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

   different color value in different domains, then the Color Extended
   Community in the CPR routes may be updated at the border nodes of the
   domains based on the color-mapping policy.

   In network scenarios where some of the intermediate network domains
   are MPLS based, the CPR routes may still be advertised using the IPv6
   unicast address family (AFI/SAFI=2/1) in the MPLS-based intermediate
   domains, and at the MPLS domain border nodes, some route resolution
   policy could be used to make the CPR routes resolved to intra-domain
   intent-aware MPLS LSPs.  Another possible mechanism is to use the
   IPv6 LU address family (AFI/SAFI=2/4) to advertise the CPR routes in
   the MPLS domains, the detailed procedure is described in
   Section 7.1.2.1 of [I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking].

2.3.  CPR to Intra-domain Path Resolution

   A domain border node which receives a CPR route can resolve the CPR
   route to an intra-domain color-aware path based on the tuple (N, C),
   where N is the next-hop of the CPR route, and C is the color extended
   community of the CPR route.  The intra-domain color-aware path could
   be built with any of the following mechanisms:

   *  SRv6 or SR-MPLS Policy

   *  SRv6 or SR-MPLS Flex-Algo

   *  RSVP-TE

   For example, PE1 receives a CPR route to PE3:CL1 with color C1 and
   next-hop ASBR11, it can resolve the CPR routes to an intra-domain
   SRv6 Policy based on the tuple (ASBR11, C1).

   The intra-domain path resolution scheme could be based on any
   existing tunnel resolution policy, and new tunnel resolution
   mechanisms could be introduced if needed.

2.4.  SRv6 Service Route Advertisement

   For an SRv6 service which is associated with a specific intent, the
   SRv6 Service SID could be allocated under the corresponding Colored
   locator prefix.  For example, on PE3 in the example topology, an SRv6
   VPN service with the low delay intent can be allocated with the SRv6
   End.DT4 SID 2001:db8:aaaa:1:1000::0100, where
   2001:db8:aaaa:1:1000::/68 is the SRv6 Colored prefix for low delay
   service.

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

   The SRv6 service routes are advertised using the mechanism defined in
   [RFC9252].  The inter-domain VPN Option C is used, which means the
   next-hop of the SRv6 service route is set to the originating PE and
   not changed.  Since the intent of the service is embedded in the SRv6
   service SID, the SRv6 service route does not need to carry the color
   extended community.

2.5.  SRv6 Service Steering

   With the CPR routing mechanism, the ingress PE node which receives
   the SRv6 service routes follows the behavior of SRv6 shortest path
   forwarding (refer to Section 5 and 6 of [RFC9252]).  The SRv6 service
   SID carried in the service route is used as the destination address
   in the outer IPv6 header encapsulated to the service packet.  If the
   corresponding CPR route has been received and installed, longest
   prefix matching of SRv6 service SIDs to the Colored prefixes is
   performed, then the intra-domain color-aware paths in each network
   domain which the CPR route is resolved to are used for forwarding the
   SRv6 service traffic.

3.  Encapsulation and Forwarding Processes

   This section describes the encapsulation and forwarding process of
   data packets which are matched with the corresponding CPR route.

3.1.  CPR over SRv6 Intra-Domain Paths

   Following is an illustration of the packet encapsulation and
   forwarding process of CPR over SRv6 Policy.  The abstract
   representation of IPv6 and SRH in section 6 of [RFC8754] is used.

   PE3 is provisioned with a Colored prefix PE3:C1 for "low-delay".

   In AS1, the SRv6 Policy for (ASBR11, C1) is represented with SID list
   (P1, BR11).

   In AS2, the SRv6 Policy for (ASBR23, C1) is represented with the SID
   list (P2, BR23).

   In AS3, the SRv6 Policy for (PE3, C1) is represented with the SID
   list (P3, PE3).

   For packets which belong to an SRv6 VPN service associated with the
   SRv6 Service SID PE3:CL1.DT, the packet encapsulation and forwarding
   process is shown as below:

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

   PE1 ->P1  : (PE1, P1)(PE3:CL1.DT, BR11; SL=2)(C-pkt)
   P1  ->BR11: (PE1, BR11)(PE3:CL1.DT, BR11; SL=1)(C-pkt)
   BR11->BR21: (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   BR21->P2  : (PE1, P2)(PE3:CL1.DT, BR23; SL=2)(C-pkt)
   P2  ->BR23: (PE1, BR23)(PE3:CL1.DT, BR23; SL=1)(C-pkt)
   BR23->BR31: (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   BR31->P3  : (PE1, P3)(PE3:CL1.DT, PE3; SL=2)(C-pkt)
   P3  ->PE3 : (PE1, PE3)(PE3:CL1.DT, PE3; SL=1)(C-pkt)

   In some network domains, SRv6 Flex-Algo may be used to provide
   intent-aware intra-domain path.  The encapsulation is similar to the
   case with SRv6 Policy.

3.2.  CPR over MPLS Intra-Domain Paths

   In network scenarios where some of the network domains use MPLS based
   data plane, the CPR route can be resolved over a color-aware intra-
   domain MPLS LSP.  Such intra-domain MPLS LSP may be established using
   SR-MPLS Policy, SR-MPLS Flex-Algo or RSVP-TE.

   The encapsulation and forwarding of SRv6 service packets (which are
   actually IPv6 packets) over an intra-domain MPLS LSP is based on the
   MPLS mechanisms as defined in [RFC3031] [RFC3032] and [RFC8660].  The
   behavior is similar to that of 6PE [RFC4798].

   In AS1, the SR-MPLS Policy for (ASBR11, C1) is represented with
   Label-stack (P1, BR11).

   In AS2, the SR-MPLS Flex-Algo for (ASBR23, C1) is represented with
   Label-stack (BR23).

   In AS3, the SR-MPLS Policy for (PE3, C1) is represented with Label-
   stack (P3, PE3).

   For packets which belong to an SRv6 VPN service associated with the
   SRv6 Service SID PE3:CL1.DT, the packet encapsulation and forwarding
   process is shown as below:

   PE1 ->P1  : Label-stack (P1, BR11) (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   P1  ->BR11:     Label-stack (BR11) (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   BR11->BR21:                        (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   BR21->P2  :     Label-stack (BR23) (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   P2  ->BR23:     Label-stack (BR23) (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   BR23->BR31:                        (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   BR31->P3  :  Label-stack (P3, PE3) (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)
   P3  ->PE3 :      Label-stack (PE3) (PE1, PE3:CL1.DT)(C-pkt)

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

4.  Operational Considerations

   When the Colored prefixes are assigned as the sub-locators of the
   node's base SRv6 locator, the IPv6 unicast route of the base locator
   prefix is the covering prefix of all the Colored locator prefixes.
   To make sure the Colored locator prefixes can be distributed to the
   ingress PE nodes along the border nodes, it is required that route
   aggregation be disabled for IPv6 unicast routes which carries the
   color extended community.

   All the border nodes and the ingress PE nodes needs to install the
   Colored locator prefixes into the RIB and FIB.  For transit domains
   which support the CPR mechanism, the border nodes can use the tuple
   (N, C) to resolve the CPR routes to intent-aware intra-domain paths.
   For transit domains which do not support the CPR mechanism, the
   border nodes would ignore the color extended community and resolve
   the CPR routes over a best effort intra-domain path to the next-hop
   N, while the CPR route will be advertised further to the downstream
   domains with only the next-hop changed to itself.  This allows the
   CPR routes to be resolved to intent-aware intra-domain paths in any
   network domains which support the CPR mechanism, while can fall back
   to resolve over best-effort intra-domain path in the legacy network
   domains.

   In this document, IPv6 Unicast address family is used for the
   advertisement of IPv6 Colored prefixes.  The primary advantage of
   this approach is the improved interoperability with legacy networks
   that lack support for intent-aware paths, and the facilitation of
   incremental deployment of intent-aware routing mechanisms.  One
   potential concern arises regarding the necessity of separating
   Colored prefixes from public IPv6 unicast routes.  While as the IP
   prefixes and SRv6 locators of network infrastructure are usually
   advertised as part of the IP unicast routes, and appropriate filters
   are configured at the boundaries of network administration, this is
   not considered to be a significant issue.  The proposal in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-car] provides a complementary solution that is also
   based on the notion of color indicating the intent and where the SRv6
   Locator prefix itself signifies the intent, the difference is that a
   separate SAFI is used.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ct] describes another mechanism for intent-aware
   routing, in which the SRv6 service SIDs are not directly associated
   with the intent, while additional SRv6 transport SIDs are required
   for steering traffic to the inter-domain intent-aware paths, and an
   SRv6 operation similar to MPLS label swapping is needed on the border
   nodes of network domains.

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   The mechanism described in this document provide an approach for
   inter-domain intent-aware routing based on existing BGP protocol
   mechanisms.  It does not introduce any additional security
   considerations than those described in [RFC4271] and [RFC4272].

7.  Contributing Authors

   The following people contributed significantly to the content of this
   document and should be considered co-authors:

   Xinjun Chen
   ifocus.chen@huawei.com

   Jingrong Xie
   xiejingrong@huawei.com

8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Shunwan Zhuang, Zhibo Hu, Zhenbin Li
   and Dhananjaya Rao for the review and valuable discussion.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2545]  Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
              Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2545, March 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2545>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4272]  Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
              RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9012]  Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
              "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.

   [RFC9252]  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/RFC9252, July 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.

   [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.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]
              Agrawal, S., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Dawra, G.,
              Li, Z., Hegde, S., and S. R. Sangli, "SRv6 and MPLS
              interworking", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-12, 10 July 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-agrawal-
              spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-12>.

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

   [I-D.hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color]
              Hegde, S., Rao, D., Uttaro, J., Bogdanov, A., and L.
              Jalil, "Problem statement for Inter-domain Intent-aware
              Routing using Color", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, 23
              October 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03>.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-car]
              Rao, D., Agrawal, S., and Co-authors, "BGP Color-Aware
              Routing (CAR)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-idr-bgp-car-05, 12 December 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
              car-05>.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ct]
              Vairavakkalai, K. and N. Venkataraman, "BGP Classful
              Transport Planes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18, 5 November 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
              ct-18>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

   [RFC4798]  De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
              "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
              Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>.

   [RFC8277]  Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
              Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.

   [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>.

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft          BGP CPR for SRv6 Services          December 2023

Authors' Addresses

   Haibo Wang
   Huawei Technologies
   China
   Email: rainsword.wang@huawei.com

   Jie Dong
   Huawei Technologies
   China
   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com

   Ketan Talaulikar
   Cisco Systems
   India
   Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com

   Tao Han
   Huawei Technologies
   China
   Email: hantao@huawei.com

   Ran Chen
   ZTE Corporation
   China
   Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn

Wang, et al.              Expires 20 June 2024                 [Page 13]