<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.2.6 -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-14"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP-LS MT for SR-based NRPs">Applicability of Border
    Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) with Multi-Topology (MT) for
    Segment Routing based Network Resource Partitions (NRPs)</title>

    <author fullname="Chongfeng Xie" initials="C." surname="Xie">
      <organization>China Telecom</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>China Telecom Beijing Information Science &amp; Technology,
          Beiqijia</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>102209</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>xiechf@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Cong Li" initials="C." surname="Li">
      <organization>China Telecom</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>China Telecom Beijing Information Science &amp; Technology,
          Beiqijia</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>102209</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>licong@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Jie Dong" initials="J." surname="Dong">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Road</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>100095</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>jie.dong@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Zhenbin Li" initials="Z." surname="Li">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Road</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>100095</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>lizhenbin@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="16" month="October" year="2025"/>

    <area>Routing Area</area>

    <workgroup>IDR Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>When Segment Routing (SR) is used for building Network Resource
      Partitions (NRPs), each NRP can be allocated with a group of Segment
      Identifiers (SIDs) to identify the topology and resource attributes of
      network segments in the NRP. This document describes how BGP-Link State
      (BGP-LS) with Multi-Topology (MT) can be used to distribute the
      information of SR-based NRPs to a network controller in a specific
      context where each NRP is associated with a separate logical topology
      identified by a Multi-Topology ID (MT-ID). This document sets out the
      targeted scenarios for the approach suggested, and presents the
      scalability limitations that arise.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
      <t><xref target="RFC9543"/> discusses the general framework, components,
      and interfaces for requesting and operating network slices using IETF
      technologies. <xref target="RFC9543"/> also introduces the concept of
      the Network Resource Partition (NRP), which is defined as a subset of
      the buffer/queuing/scheduling resources and associated policies on each
      of a connected set of links in an underlay network. An NRP can be
      associated with a logical network topology to select or specify the set
      of links and nodes involved. <xref target="RFC9732"/> specifies a
      framework of NRP-based enhanced VPNs and describes the candidate
      component technologies in different network planes and network layers.
      An NRP could be used as the underlay to meet the requirements of one or
      a group of network slices or enhanced VPN services. The mechanism of
      enforcing NRP resource allocation and the mechanism of mapping one or
      group of enhanced VPN services to a specific NRP are outside the scope
      of this document. Similarly, classification and means to bind packets to
      NRPs are out of scope this document.</t>

      <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments"/> introduces
      resource awareness to Segment Routing (SR) <xref target="RFC8402"/>. As
      described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn"/>, a
      group of resource-aware SIDs can be used to build SR-based NRPs with the
      required network topology and network resource attributes. The group of
      resource-aware SR SIDs together with the associated topology and
      resource attributes of an NRP need to be distributed in the network
      using IGPs. BGP-Link State (BGP-LS) <xref target="RFC9552"/> can then be
      used to advertise the SR SIDs and the resource related Traffic
      Engineering (TE) attributes (e.g., link bandwidth) of NRPs in each IGP
      area or AS to a network controller.</t>

      <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC9543"/>, some NRP realizations may
      build NRPs with dedicated topologies, while other realizations may use a
      shared topology for multiple NRPs. The exact NRPs characterization, the
      number of NRPs, and their binding to a topology are
      deployment-specific.</t>

      <t>In some network scenarios, the required number of NRPs may be small,
      each NRP can be associated with a separate logical topology, i.e., there
      is 1:1 mapping between an NRP and a Multi-Topology (MT) ID, and the set
      of dedicated or shared network resources of the NRP can be considered to
      be associated with the logical topology. <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt"/> describes how IS-IS
      Multi-Topology (MT) <xref target="RFC5120"/> can be used to advertise an
      independent topology and the associated SR SIDs, together with the
      topology-specific resource related TE attributes in the network.</t>

      <t>In some network scenarios, for instance, an operator's network
      consists of multiple network parts, such as metro area networks,
      backbone networks, or data center networks, each part being a different
      AS. NRPs can be enabled independently in each network part.
      Specifically, it is not required to enable multiple NRPs in all network
      parts, and the number of NRPs is local to each domain. However, there
      might be a need to stitch NRPs that span multiple ASes, typically under
      the same network administration. NRP stitching is likely to require
      classification, (re)marking, admission control, etc. at ingress nodes of
      network domains. These considerations are out of scope of this
      document.</t>

      <t>This document describes how BGP-LS with MT can be used distribute
      information of the logical topology, the associated SIDs, and the
      topology-specific resource information to a network controller for
      intra-domain and inter-domain SR-based NRPs. The limitations and the
      targeted scenario of this approach are described in "Scalability
      Considerations" (Section 4).</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Advertisement of Topology Information">
      <t>This section describes the corresponding BGP-LS mechanism to
      distribute both the intra-domain and inter-domain topology information
      and the associated SR SIDs. For the inter-domain case, the involved
      network domains should be under a common administration, or they belong
      to the same trusted domain as specified in Section 8 of <xref
      target="RFC8402"/>.</t>

      <section title="Intra-domain Topology Advertisement">
        <t>Section 5.2.2.1 of <xref target="RFC9552"/> defines the
        Multi-Topology Identifier (MT-ID) TLV, which can contain one or more
        Multi-Topology Identifiers for a link, node, or prefix. The MT-ID TLV
        may be included as a Link Descriptor, as a Prefix Descriptor, or in
        the BGP-LS Attribute of a Node Network Layer Reachability Information
        (NLRI). The detailed rules of the usage of MT-ID TLV in BGP-LS is also
        specified in Section 5.2.2.1 of <xref target="RFC9552"/>.</t>

        <t>When Multi-Topology is used with the SR-MPLS data plane <xref
        target="RFC8660"/>, topology-specific Prefix-SIDs and
        topology-specific Adjacency Segment Identifiers (Adj-SIDs) can be
        carried in the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Prefix NLRI and
        Link NLRI respectively (Section 2 of <xref target="RFC9085"/>), the
        MT-ID TLV carried in the Prefix Descriptor or Link Descriptor <xref
        target="RFC9552"/> can be used to identify the corresponding topology
        of the SIDs.</t>

        <t>When Multi-Topology is used with the SRv6 data plane <xref
        target="RFC8754"/>, the SRv6 Locator TLV is carried in the BGP-LS
        Attribute associated with the Prefix NLRI, the MT-ID TLV can be
        carried as a Prefix Descriptor to identify the corresponding topology
        of the SRv6 Locator (Section 6 of <xref target="RFC9514"/>). The SRv6
        End.X SIDs are carried in the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the
        Link NLRI, the MT-ID TLV can be carried in the Link Descriptor to
        identify the corresponding topology of the End.X SIDs. The SRv6 SID
        NLRI is defined to advertise other types of SRv6 SIDs, in which the
        SRv6 SID descriptors can include the MT-ID TLV so as to advertise
        topology-specific SRv6 SIDs.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Inter-Domain Topology Advertisement">
        <t><xref target="RFC9086"/> defines the BGP-LS extensions for BGP EPE
        with SR-MPLS. The BGP-LS extensions for Egress Peer Engineering with
        SRv6 are specified in <xref target="RFC9514"/>. These extensions could
        be used by a network controller for the collection of inter-domain
        topology and SR SID information, which can be used for the computation
        and instantiation of inter-AS SR-TE paths.</t>

        <t>For the case of inter-domain, the inter-domain connectivity and the
        BGP peering SR SIDs associated with each logical topology on the
        inter-domain links need to be advertised. This section describes the
        applicability of multi-topology for the advertisement of inter-domain
        topology and the associated SR SIDs using BGP-LS. It does not
        introduce multi-topology into the operation of BGP sessions on the
        inter-domain links.</t>

        <t>In this document, consistent allocation of MT-ID means that the same
        MT-ID is used in multiple domains for the concatenation of an inter-domain
        logical topology. When a MT-ID is consistantly allocated in multiple
        domains, the MT-ID can be carried in the link NLRI of the inter-domain
        links for the advertisement of inter-domain logical topology and the
        topology-specific BGP peering SIDs. This can be achieved with the
        combination of existing mechanisms as defined in <xref
        target="RFC9552"/><xref target="RFC9086"/> and <xref
        target="RFC9514"/>.</t>

        <t>Depending on the different inter-domain scenarios, the approaches
        for the inter-domain topology advertisement can be one or multiple of
        the following:</t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>One External BGP (EBGP) session between two ASes can be
            established over multiple underlying links. In this case,
            different underlying links may be assigned to different
            inter-domain logical topologies. In another similar case, the EBGP
            session is established over a single physical link, while the
            network resource (e.g., bandwidth) on this link is partitioned,
            each of which is instantiated as a logical sub-interface, and each
            logical link can be associated with a separate logical topology.
            Different BGP Peer-Adj-SIDs or SRv6 End.X SIDs need to be
            allocated and provisioned to each underlying physical or logical
            link. The association between the underlying physical or logical
            links and the corresponding MT-ID, together with the BGP
            Peer-Adj-SIDs or SRv6 End.X SID need to be advertised by the ASBR
            to a network controller.</t>

            <t>For inter-domain connection(s) between two ASes, multiple EBGP
            sessions can be established between different sets of peering
            ASBRs: It is possible that some of these BGP peers are only used
            for one inter-domain logical topology, while some other BGP peers
            are used for another inter-domain logical topology. In this case,
            different BGP Peer Node SIDs can be allocated and provisioned to
            steer traffic to a specific peer within an inter-domain logical
            topology. The association between the link of the BGP peering
            session and the corresponding MT-ID, together with the BGP Peer
            Node SIDs need to be advertised by the ASBR to a network
            controller.</t>

            <t>At the level inter-AS topology, different inter-domain logical
            topologies may have different inter-AS connectivity. Different BGP
            Peer Set SIDs may be allocated and provisioned to represent a
            group of BGP peers which can be used for load-balancing within
            each inter-domain logical topology. The BGP Peer Set SIDs may be
            advertised in the BGP-LS attributes of the link NLRI which carries
            the corresponding MT-ID.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>In network scenarios where consistent allocation of MT-ID among
        multiple domains for an inter-domain logical topology can not be
        achieved, the MT-IDs advertised by the two peering ASBRs to a network
        controller for the same inter-domain link in a logical topology could
        be different. The ASBRs just need to distribute the inter-domain link 
        information with MT-ID to the controllers, it is the controller's job
        to provide some mapping mechanism to match the different MT-IDs of an
        inter-domain link in two directions (e.g., for one inter-domain link, 
        MT-ID A in domain X will be matched with MT-ID B in domain Y), and 
        concatenate the inter-domain logical topology. The detailed mechanism
        is out of the scope of this document.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Advertisement of Resource related TE Attribute">
      <t>The information of the network resources attributes of a link
      associated with a specific topology can be specified by carrying the
      corresponding TE Link attribute TLVs in BGP-LS Attribute <xref
      target="RFC9552"/>, with the associated MT-ID carried in the
      corresponding Link NLRI.</t>

      <t>For example, a subset of the bandwidth resource on a link for a
      specific logical topology can be advertised by carrying the Maximum Link
      Bandwidth sub-TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Link NLRI
      which carries the corresponding MT-ID. The bandwidth advertised can be
      exclusive for this logical topology. The advertisement of other
      topology-specific TE attributes in BGP-LS is for further study. The
      receiving BGP-LS speaker should be prepared to receive any TE attributes
      in BGP-LS Attribute with the associated MT-ID carried in the
      corresponding Link NLRI.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Scalability Considerations">
      <t>This document assumes that each NRP is associated with an independent
      logical topology, and for the inter-domain NRPs, the MT-IDs used in the
      involved domains are consistent, or some mapping mechanism is used, so
      that the associated MT-ID can be used to identify the NRP in the control
      plane. Using MT-ID to identify NRP allows to reuse the multi-topology
      related control plane mechanisms for the distribution of NRP topology
      and resource information, while this 1:1 mapping between NRP and MT-ID
      also has some limitations. For example, even if multiple NRPs share the
      same topology, each NRP still need to be identified using a unique MT-ID
      in the control plane. Therefore independent path computation needs be
      executed for each NRP. The number of NRPs supported in a network may be
      dependent on the number of topologies supported, which is related to
      both the number of topologies supported in the protocol and the control
      plane overhead which the network could afford. Since no new control
      protocol extension is required, the mechanism described in this document
      is considered useful for network scenarios in which the required number
      of NRPs is small (e.g., less than 10). For network scenarios where the
      number of required NRPs is large, more scalable solutions would be
      needed which may require further protocol extensions and
      enhancements.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="security-considerations" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The security considerations in <xref target="RFC9552"/> <xref
      target="RFC9085"/> and <xref target="RFC9514"/> apply to this
      document.</t>

      <t>This document introduces no additional security vulnerabilities to
      BGP-LS. The mechanism proposed in this document is subject to the same
      vulnerabilities as any other protocol that relies on BGP-LS.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document does not request any IANA actions.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Shunwan Zhuang, Adrian Farrel, Susan
      Hares, Jeffrey Haas, Ketan Talaulikar and Mohamed Boucadair for the
      review and discussion of this document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8402'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9085'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9086'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9514'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9543'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9552'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5120'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8660'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8754'?>
      
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">


      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9732'?>



      <?rfc ?>
    </references>
  </back>

  <!---->
</rfc>