Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Bidgoli, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9961 Nokia
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Z. Ali
Expires: 12 April 2026
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco System
Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks
A. BudhirajaC
D. Voyer
Cisco System
9 October 2025
April 2026
Segment Routing MPLS Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy Ping
draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-25
Abstract
SR
Segment Routing (SR) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are used to
define and manage explicit P2MP paths within a network. These
policies are typically calculated via a controller-based mechanism
and installed via, e.g., a Path Computation Element (PCE). In other cases
cases, these policies can be installed via using NETCONF/YANG the Network
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) / YANG or CLI. a Command Line Interface
(CLI). They are used to steer multicast traffic along optimized
paths from a Root to a set of Leaf routers.
This document defines extensions to Ping and Traceroute mechanisms
for an SR P2MP Policy with MPLS encapsulation to provide OAM
(Operations, Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance) Maintenance (OAM) capabilities. The extensions
enable operators to verify connectivity, diagnose failures failures, and
troubleshoot forwarding issues within SR P2MP Policy multicast trees.
By introducing new mechanisms for detecting failures and validating
path integrity, this document enhances the operational robustness of
P2MP multicast deployments. Additionally, it ensures that existing
MPLS and SR-based OAM tools can be effectively applied to networks
utilizing SR P2MP Policies.
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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 12 April 2026.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9961.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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)
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used Used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 This Document
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. MPLS P2MP Policy Ping and Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Applicability of current the Current RFC to SR P2MP Policies . . 4
3.1.2. Conformance to Existing Procedures and Additional
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Considerations for Interworking with Unicast paths . 6 Paths
3.2. Packet format Format and new New TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Identifying a P2MP Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1.1. SR MPLS P2MP Policy Tree Instance FEC Stack
Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Limiting the Scope of Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Nokia Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Considerations
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1.
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2.
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
[draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
[RFC9960] explains the concept of the SR P2MP Policy and its Candidate Paths
candidate paths (CPs). It also explains the concept of how a CP is
selected to be the active CP. To enable seamless global optimization
optimization, a CP may consist of multiple P2MP Tree Instances tree instances
(PTIs), allowing for Make-Before-Break (MBB) procedures between an active
PTI and a newly established, optimized PTI. A PTI is the actual P2MP
tunnel set up from the Root to a set of Leaves via transit routers.
A PTI is identified on the Root node by the PTI's instance ID.
To ensure reliable network operation, it is essential to verify end-
to-end connectivity for both active and backup CPs, as well as all
associated PTIs. This document specifies a mechanism for detecting
data plane failures within a an SR P2MP Policy CP and its associated
PTIs, enabling operators to monitor and troubleshoot multicast path
integrity.
This specification applies exclusively to Replication Segments
(Replication SIDs)
(Replication-SIDs) that use MPLS encapsulation for forwarding and
does not cover Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6). The mechanisms
described herein build upon the concepts established in [RFC6425] for
P2MP MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). All
considerations and limitations described in section Section 6 of [RFC6425]
apply to this document as well.
1.1. Terminology
The readers of this document should familiarize themselves with the
following documents and sections for terminology and details
regarding the implementation of the SR P2MP Policy
[RFC9524] section Policy.
[RFC9524], Section 1.1 defines terms specific to an SR Replication
Segment
segment and also explains the Node node terminology in a Multicast domain,
including the Root Node, node, Leaf Node node, and a Bud Node.
[draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] section 2, node.
[RFC9960], Section 1.1 defines terms and concepts specific to the SR
P2MP Policy including the CP and the PTI.
2. Conventions used Used in this document This Document
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.
3. Motivation
A
An SR P2MP Policy and its corresponding Replication Segments segments are
typically provisioned via a centralized controller or configured
using NETCONF/YANG or CLI. The root Root and the leaves Leaves are discovered in
accordance with [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] [RFC9960], and the multicast tree is computed from
the root Root to the leaves. Leaves. However, there is no underlay signaling
protocol to distribute the SR P2MP Policy from the
root Root to the leaf Leaf
routers. Consequently, when a P2MP tree fails to deliver user
traffic, identifying the failure can be challenging without ping and
traceroute mechanisms to isolate faults along the tree.
To address this challenge, SR P2MP Policy ping and traceroute can be
utilized to detect and localize faults within the P2MP tree and its
associated Replication Segments, segments, as defined in [RFC9524]. These OAM
tools enable periodic ping operations to verify connectivity between
the root Root and the leaves. Leaves. In cases where a ping fails, a traceroute
can be initiated to determine the point of failure along the tree.
This diagnostic process can be initiated from the node responsible
for establishing the SR P2MP Policy, ensuring proactive monitoring
and fault detection.
3.1. MPLS P2MP Policy Ping and Traceroute
Ping/Traceroute packets are forwarded based upon the SR P2MP Policy, Policy
on a specific CP and its PTI toward the designated leaf Leaf routers.
These packets are replicated at the replication point based on the
Replication Segment segment forwarding information on the corresponding
router.
MPLS Packets packets are processed based on the standard behavior when their
Time-to-Live
Time to Live (TTL) expires or when they reach the egress (leaf) (Leaf)
router. The appropriate response is sent back to the root Root node
following the procedures outlined in [RFC6425].
3.1.1. Applicability of current the Current RFC to SR P2MP Policies
The procedures in [RFC6425] define fault detection and isolation
mechanisms for P2MP MPLS LSPs Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and extend the
LSP ping techniques described in [RFC8029] such that they may be
applied to P2MP MPLS LSPs, ensuring alignment with existing fault
management tools. [RFC6425] emphasizes the reuse of existing LSP
ping mechanisms designed for Point-to-Point P2P (P2P) LSPs, adapting them
to P2MP MPLS LSPs to facilitate seamless implementation and network
operation.
The fault detection procedures specified in [RFC6425] are applicable
to all P2MP MPLS protocols, including P2MP RSVP-TE and Multicast LDP
and now the SR P2MP SR Policy. While [RFC6425] highlights specific
differences for P2MP RSVP-TE and Multicast LDP, this document
introduces considerations unique to SR P2MP Policies, including:
1. Egress Address P2MP Responder Sub-TLVs: sub-TLVs: Multicast LDP, as per
section
Section 3.2.1 of [RFC6425], does not allow for the inclusion of
Egress Address P2MP Responder Sub-TLVs, sub-TLVs, as upstream LSRs Label
Switching Routers (LSRs) lack visibility into downstream leaf Leaf
nodes. Similarly, SR P2MP Policies often rely on a Path
Computation Element (PCE) for programming transit routers. This
is why in the SR P2MP domain, transit routers do not have
knowledge of the leaf Leaf nodes. Only the Root node, where the SR
P2MP Policy is programmed, has visibility into the leaf Leaf nodes.
Consequently, these Sub-TLVs sub-TLVs SHOULD NOT be used when an echo
request carries a an SR P2MP Policy MPLS Candidate Path FEC. Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC). If a node receives the Egress Address
P2MP Responder Sub-TLVs sub-TLVs in an echo request, then it will not
respond since it is unaware of whether it lies on the path to the
address in the sub-TLV.
2. End of Processing for Traceroutes: As per section Section 4.3.1 of
[RFC6425], it is RECOMMENDED that for traceroute orations provide for
a configurable upper limit on TTL values. This is because because, for
some protocols like Multicast LDP, there may not be an easy way
to figure out the end of the traceroute processing processing, as the
initiating LSR might not always know about all of the leaf Leaf
routers. In the case of a an SR P2MP Policy Policy, the Root node has
visibility of the leaf nodes, Leaf nodes; as such such, there is a definitive way
to estimate the end of processing for a traceroute traceroute, and a
configurable upper limit on TTL may not be necessary. How ever, However, a
configurable upper limit on the TTL value is an implementation
choice.
3. Identification of the LSP under test: [RFC6425], in Section 3.1, 3.1 of [RFC6425]
defines distinct identifiers for P2MP RSVP-TE and Multicast LDP
when identifying an LSP under test. As each protocol has its own
identifier, this document introduces a new Target FEC Stack TLV
specific to SR P2MP Policies to uniquely identify their Candidate
Paths (CPs) CPs and P2MP Tree Instances (PTIs).
PTIs. These modifications ensure that SR P2MP Policy OAM
mechanisms are properly aligned with existing MPLS ping and
traceroute tools while addressing the specific operational
characteristics of SR P2MP Policies.
3.1.2. Conformance to Existing Procedures and Additional Considerations
In addition to major differences outlined in the previous section, SR
P2MP Policies SHOULD follow to the common procedures specified in
[RFC6425] for P2MP MPLS LSPs. Furthermore, this specification reuses
the same destination UDP port as defined in [RFC8029] for consistency
with the existing MPLS OAM mechanism.
Implementations MUST account for the fact that a an SR P2MP Policy may
contain multiple CPs, and each CP may consist of multiple PTIs. As
such, implementations SHOULD support the ability to individually test
each CP and its corresponding PTI using ping and traceroute
mechanisms. The ping and traceroute packets are forwarded along the
specified CP and its PTI, traversing the associated Replication
Segments.
segments. When a downstream node capable of understanding the
replication SID
Replication-SID receives a ping or traceroute packet, it MUST process
the request and generate a response even if the CP and its PTI are
not currently the active path.
3.1.3. Considerations for Interworking with Unicast paths Paths
As per [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] [RFC9960], there are two ways to build a P2MP Tree: tree:
1. P2MP Tree tree with non-adjacent Replication Segments segments
2. P2MP tree with adjacent Replication Segments segments
For the case of adjacent Replication Segments, segments, there are no special
considerations for the TTL or Hop Limit propagation propagation, and the TTL
should be decremented hop by hop as the OAM packet traverses the
Replication Segments segments of a P2MP tree.
For the case of non-adjacent Replication Segments, as an example segments (for example, two
Replication Segments segments that are connected via a an SR Policy or similar
technology,
technology), there are special considerations. In such scenarios, SR
P2MP Policy OAM tools should be used to verify the connectivity of
the non-adjacent Replication Segments segments that are building the P2MP Tree
tree, while the unicast OAM tools should be used to verify the
connectivity of the unicast path connecting the two non-adjacent
Replication Segment. segments. In these scenarios scenarios, the Replication SID Replication-SID should
not be exposed or examined in the unicast path. Proper TTL handling
to copy the Replication Segment segment TTL to the unicast path can be
achieved via the hierarchical MPLS TTL mode being used (e.g., Pipe
Mode vs. Uniform Mode) as per [RFC3270]. For the P2MP Tree Traceroute
Traceroute, the TTL mode MUST be set to PIPE mode Pipe Mode on the router that
the unicast path starts. This will ensure that the unicast path TTL
is set to a large value that allows the traceroute packet to be
delivered to the downstream Replication Segment. segment. For Ping Ping, either
the PIPE mode Pipe Mode or the Uniform mode Mode can be used depending on the
implementation. The unicast path failure detection is considered out
of scope for this document.
3.2. Packet format Format and new New TLVs
The packet format used in this specification follow section follows Section 3 of
[RFC8029]. However, additional TLVs and sub-TLVs are required to
support the new functionality introduced for SR P2MP Policies. These
extensions are described in the following sections.
3.2.1. Identifying a P2MP Policy
[RFC8029] defines a standardized mechanism for detecting data-plane data plane
failures in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs). MPLS LSPs. To correctly identify the Replication Segment segment
associated with a given Candidate Path (CP) CP and P2MP Tree Instance (PTI), PTI, the
Echo Request echo request message MUST
include a Target FEC Stack TLV that explicitly specifies the Candidate Path
candidate path and P2MP Tree Instance tree instance under test.
This document introduces a new sub-TLV, referred to as the SR MPLS
P2MP Policy Tree Instance sub-TLV, which is defined as follows:
+==========+==========+===================================+
| Sub-Type | Length | Value Field
-------- ------ ----------- |
+==========+==========+===================================+
| 41 | Variable | SR MPLS P2MP Policy Tree Instance |
+----------+----------+-----------------------------------+
Table 1
Further details regarding the structure and processing of this sub-
TLV are provided in subsequent sections.
3.2.1.1. SR MPLS P2MP Policy Tree Instance FEC Stack Sub-TLVs
The SR MPLS P2MP Policy Tree Instance sub-TLV value field follows the
format specified in Section 2.3 of [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]. [RFC9960]. The structure of this
sub-TLV is illustrated in the figure below. It should be noted that
this sub-TLV is testing a specific PTI within a specific CP and it is
not testing the CP.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Family | Address Length| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Root ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tree-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
*
Address Family: (2 octets) 2 octets. IPv4/IPv6 ADDRESS FAMILY NUMBERS Address Family Numbers as
specified in [IANA-AF] , [IANA-AF], indicating the address family Address Family of the Root.
Any other Address Family but IPv4/IPv6 Family, except IPv4/IPv6, is not supported by
this draft.
* document.
Address Length: (1 octet) specifying 1 octet. Specifies the length of the Root Address
in octets (4 octets for IPv4, and 16 octets for IPv6).
*
Reserved: MUST be set to zero by the sender and it should be ignored by
the receiver.
*
Root: (variable Variable length depending on the address family field) Address Family field. The
root
Root node of the SR P2MP Policy, as defined in
[draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
* [RFC9960].
Tree-ID: (4 octets) 4 octets. A unique identifier for the P2MP tree, as
defined in [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
* [RFC9960].
Instance-ID: (2 octets) identifies 2 octets. Identifies the specific Path-Instance Path-Instance, as
defined in[draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] in [RFC9960].
3.3. Limiting the Scope of Response
As specified in section Section 3.2 of [RFC6425], four sub-TLVs are used
within the P2MP Responder Identifier TLV that is included in the echo
request message.
The Sub-TLVs sub-TLVs for IPv4 and IPv6 egress addresses of the P2MP responder
are aligned with section Section 3.2.1 of [RFC6425].
The sub-TLVs for IPv4 and IPv6 node addresses of the P2MP responder
are aligned with Section 3.2.2 of [RFC6425] [RFC6425].
These mechanisms ensure that responses are appropriately scoped to
limit unnecessary processing and improve the efficiency of P2MP OAM
procedures.
4. Implementation Status
Note to the RFC Editor: please remove this section before
publication. This section records the status of known
implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the
time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal
described in RFC7942 . The description of implementations in this
section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in
progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any
individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the
IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the
information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.
This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog
of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised
to note that other implementations may exist. According to RFC7942,
"this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due
consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code,
which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback
that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to
the individual working groups to use this information as they see
fit".
4.1. Nokia Implementation
Nokia has implemented [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] and [RFC9524].
In addition, Nokia has implemented P2MP policy ping as defined in
this draft to verify the end to end connectivity of a P2MP tree in
segment routing domain. The implementation supports SR-MPLS
encapsulation and has all the MUST and SHOULD clause in this draft.
The implementation is at general availability maturity and is
compliant with the latest version of the draft. The documentation
for implementation can be found at Nokia help and the point of
contact is hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com.
5. IANA Consideration Considerations
IANA has assigned the code point a sub-type value for the "SR SR MPLS P2MP Policy Tree
Instance" Sub-TLV Name. This Sub-TLV is assigned from
Instance sub-TLV in the "Sub-TLVs for TLV type 1
(Target FEC Stack) from Types 1, 16, and 21"
registry under the "Multi-Protocol "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry group. The
Sub-TLVs for TLV type 1 are listed under "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1,
16, and 21" sub-registry. This sub-type
value is has been assigned from the
standards Standards Action range of 0-16383 as
shown below. Note that the sub-TLV has been assigned from Type 1
(Target FEC Stack) of the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1,
16, and 21" sub-registry. "TLVs" registry.
+==========+===================================+
| Sub-Type | Sub-TLV Name |
+==========+===================================+
| 41 | SR MPLS P2MP Policy Tree Instance
6. |
+----------+-----------------------------------+
Table 2
5. Security Considerations
Overall, the security needs for P2MP policy ping are the same as
[draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy], [RFC6425] and[RFC8029]. The in
[RFC9960], [RFC6425], and [RFC8029]. P2MP policy ping is susceptible
to the same three attack vectors as explained in [RFC8029] section 5. Section 5 of
[RFC8029]. The same procedures and recommendations explained in [RFC8029] section
Section 5 of [RFC8029] should be taken and implemented to mitigate
these attack vectors for P2MP policy Ping ping as well.
In addition addition, the security considerations of section in Section 8 of [RFC6425]
should be followed, specifically the security recommendations recommendation from [RFC4379]
[RFC4379], which recommends "To avoid potential Denial-of-Service
attacks, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations regulate the LSP ping
traffic going to the control plane. A rate limiter SHOULD be applied
to the well-
known well-known UDP port" allocated for this service."
7. Acknowledgments
8. service.
6. References
8.1.
6.1. Normative References
[draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
"D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang,
"draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"", July 2025.
[RFC2119] "S. Brandner, Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels"", Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3270] "F. Le Faucheur, L. F., Ed., Wu, B. Davie "MPLS L., Davie, B., Davari, S.,
Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen,
"Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of
Differentiated Services"", Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270,
May 2002. 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC4379] "K. Kompella, K. and G. Swallow Swallow, "Detecting MPLS Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane
Failures"", Failures", RFC 4379,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006. 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC6425] "S. Saxena, G. S., Ed., Swallow, Z. G., Ali, A. Z., Farrel, S. A.,
Yasukawa,
T.Nadeau S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane
Failures in Point-to-
Multipoint MPLS"", Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP
Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011. 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425>.
[RFC8029] "K. Kompella, G. K., Swallow, C. Pgnataro, N. kumar, S. Aldrin G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures.", February 2006. Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] "B. Leiba, "ambiguity B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words"", Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017. 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9524] "D. Voyer, C. D., Ed., Filsfils, R. C., Parekh, H. R., Bidgoli, H., and
Z. Zhang, "Segment Routing Replication for Multipoint
Service
Delivery"", Delivery", RFC 9524, DOI 10.17487/RFC9524,
February 2024.
8.2. 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9524>.
[RFC9960] Parekh, R., Ed., Voyer, D., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bidgoli,
H., and Z. Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint
Policy", RFC 9960, DOI 10.17487/RFC9960, April 2026,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9960>.
6.2. Informative References
[IANA-AF] "IANA Assigned Port Numbers,
"http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers"". IANA, "Address Family Numbers",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
Authors' Addresses
Hooman Bidgoli (editor)
Nokia
Ottawa
Canada
Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco System
San Jose,
United States of America
Email: zali@cisco.com
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
Boston,
United States of America
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Anuj Budhiraja
Cisco System
San Jose,
United States of America
Email: abudhira@cisco.com
Daniel Voyer
Cisco System
Montreal
Canada
Email: davoyer@cisco.com