<?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="std" docName="draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-05"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP SR Policy for NRP">BGP SR Policy Extensions for Network
    Resource Partition</title>

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

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

    <author fullname="Zhibo Hu" initials="Z." surname="Hu">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

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

    <author fullname="Ran Pang" initials="R." surname="Pang">
      <organization>China Unicom</organization>

      <address>
        <email>pangran@chinaunicom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="13" month="January" year="2026"/>

    <workgroup>IDR Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>Segment Routing (SR) Policy is a set of candidate paths, each
      consisting of one or more segment lists and the associated information.
      The header of a packet steered in an SR Policy is augmented with an
      ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy. A Network
      Resource Partition (NRP) is a subset of network resources allocated in
      the underlay network which can be used to support one or a group of RFC
      9543 network slice services.</t>

      <t>In networks where there are multiple NRPs, an SR Policy may be
      associated with a particular NRP. The association between SR Policy and
      NRP needs to be specified, so that for service traffic which is steered
      into the SR Policy, the header of the packets can be augmented with the
      information associated with the NRP. An SR Policy candidate path can be
      distributed using BGP SR Policy. This document defines the extensions to
      BGP SR policy to specify the NRP which the SR Policy candidate path is
      associated with.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
      <t>The concept of Segment Routing (SR) policy is defined in <xref
      target="RFC9256"/>. An SR Policy is a set of candidate paths, each
      consisting of one or more segment lists. The head end of an SR Policy
      may learn multiple candidate paths for an SR Policy. The header of a
      packet steered in an SR Policy is augmented with an ordered list of
      segments associated with that SR Policy. The BGP extensions to
      distribute SR Policy candidate paths is defined in <xref
      target="RFC9830"/>.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC9543"/> discusses the general framework, components,
      and interfaces for requesting and operating network slices using IETF
      technologies. It also introduces the concept Network Resource Partition
      (NRP), which is a subset of the resources and associated policies in the
      underlay network. The network slices defined in <xref target="RFC9543"/>
      can be realized by mapping one or more connectivity constructs to an
      NRP. <xref target="RFC9732"/> describes the framework and the candidate
      component technologies for providing enhanced VPN services based on VPN
      and Traffic Engineering (TE) technologies. Enhanced VPN (VPN+) can be
      used for the realization of network slice services defined in <xref
      target="RFC9543"/>.</t>

      <t>As described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-nrp-scalability"/>, one
      scalable data plane approach to support network slicing is to carry a
      dedicated NRP ID in the data packet to identify the NRP the packet
      belongs to, so that the packet can be processed and forwarded using the
      subset of network resources allocated to the NRP.</t>

      <t>In networks where there are multiple NRPs, an SR Policy may be
      associated with a particular NRP. The association between SR Policy and
      NRP needs to be specified, so that for service traffic which is steered
      into the SR Policy, the header of the packets can be augmented with the
      information associated with the NRP. The association between an SR
      Policy and an NRP is described in <xref
      target="I-D.jiang-spring-sr-policy-nrp"/>. An SR Policy candidate path
      can be distributed using BGP SR Policy. This document defines the
      extensions to BGP SR policy to specify the control plane NRP ID that is
      associated with the SR Policy candidate path.</t>

      <section title="Requirements Language">
        <t>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
        BCP14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only
        when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="NRP Identifier of SR Policy">
      <t>In order to specify the NRP the candidate path of SR policy is
      associated with, a new sub-TLV called "NRP" sub-TLV is defined in the
      BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute <xref target="RFC9012"/>. The NRP
      sub-TLV can be carried in the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute with
      the tunnel type set to SR Policy. The use of the NRP sub-TLV in other
      tunnel types is outside the scope of this document.</t>

      <t>The NRP sub-TLV has the following format:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |   Length      |     Flags     |   Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         NRP ID (4 octets)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      Figure 1. NRP Sub-TLV]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>where:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Type: 123 (assigned by IANA)</t>

          <t>Length: 6 octets.</t>

          <t>Flags: 1-octet flag field. None is defined at this stage. The
          flags SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
          receipt.</t>

          <t>Reserved: 1 octet of reserved bits. It SHOULD be set to zero on
          transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

          <t>NRP ID: A 32-bit domain significant identifier which is used to
          identify an NRP in the control plane. The values of 0 and 0xFFFFFFFF
          are reserved.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The validation of an SR Policy NLRI with the NRP Sub-TLV in the BGP
      tunnel encapsulation attribute <xref target="RFC9012"/> follows the
      procedures in section 4.2 of <xref target="RFC9830"/>, augmented by the
      validation procedures described in this document.</t>

      <t>When the NRP sub-TLV is carried in the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
      Attribute associated with an SR Policy NLRI, a segment list of the
      candidate path is considered invalid if the headend node of the SR
      Policy determines that the set of network resources corresponding to the
      control plane NRP ID on network segments identified by the segment list
      do not exist. The detailed mechanisms for NRP resource validation are
      out of the scope of this document.</t>

      <t>The encoding structure of BGP SR Policy with the NRP sub-TLV is
      expressed as below:</t>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[         SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
         Attributes:
            Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
               Tunnel Type: SR Policy (15)
                   Binding SID
                   SRv6 Binding SID
                   Preference
                   Priority
                   Policy Name
                   Policy Candidate Path Name
                   Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                   NRP
                   Segment List
                       Weight
                       Segment
                       Segment
                       ...
                   ...
             Figure 2. SR Policy Encoding with NRP sub-TLV]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t/>
    </section>

    <section title="Procedures">
      <t>When a candidate path of SR Policy is instantiated within an NRP, and
      a network-wide data plane NRP Selector ID is used for identifying the
      resources of the NRP, the originating node of SR Policy SHOULD include
      the NRP sub-TLV in the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute of the BGP SR
      Policy. The setting of other fields and attributes in BGP SR Policy
      SHOULD follow the mechanism as defined in <xref target="RFC9830"/>.</t>

      <t>On reception of an SR Policy NLRI, a BGP speaker determines if it is
      acceptable and usable according to the rules defined in Section 4.2 of
      <xref target="RFC9830"/> and section 2 of this document. If the SR
      Policy candidate path selected as the best candidate path is associated
      with an NRP, the headend node of the SR Policy SHOULD map the NRP ID to
      the data plane NRP Selector ID, then encapsulate both the NRP Selector
      ID and the segment list of the selected candidate path in the header of
      packets which are steered to the SR Policy. For SR Policy with IPv6 data
      plane, the data plane NRP Selector ID can be the same as the NRP ID, and
      the approach to encapsulate the NRP Selector ID in IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
      Options header is defined in <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id"/>. For SR Policy with MPLS
      data plane, the mechanisms of mapping and encapsulation of the NRP
      Selector ID in the packet would based on the framework defined in <xref
      target="RFC9789"/>.</t>

      <t>Although the proposed mechanism allows that different candidate paths
      in one SR policy be associated with different NRPs, in normal network
      scenarios it is considered that the association between an SR Policy and
      NRP is consistent, in such case all candidate paths of one SR policy
      SHOULD be associated with the same NRP.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Error Handling">
      <t>The error handling of the BGP Update messages for BGP SR Policy SAFI
      with the NRP extensions defined in this document follows the procedures
      in section 5 of <xref target="RFC9830"/>.</t>

      <t>The NRP sub-TLV is optional and MUST NOT appear more than once for
      one SR Policy candidate path. The NRP sub-TLV is considered malformed if
      its format does not match the above description. If the NRP sub-TLV
      appears more than once, or its format is considered malformed, the
      associated BGP SR Policy NLRI is considered malformed and the
      "treat-as-withdraw" strategy of <xref target="RFC7606"/> MUST be
      applied.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Scalability Considerations">
      <t>The mechanism specified in this document adds additional information
      to the SR Policy candidate paths. In order to steer traffic into
      different NRPs using SR Policy, the SR Policies used for different NRPs
      need to be different. As the number of NRP increases, the number of SR
      Policies would also increase accordingly. When BGP is used for
      distributing SR Policy candidate paths, the amount of control plane
      information exchanged between the network controller and the headend
      nodes would also increase. However, since the SR Policies candidate
      paths distributed in BGP are only installed by the corresponding headend
      nodes, the impacts to the BGP control plane are considered
      acceptable.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="security-considerations" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The security considerations of BGP <xref target="RFC4271"/> and BGP
      SR policy <xref target="RFC9830"/> apply to this document.</t>

      <t>The NRP sub-TLV provides a control plane NRP ID that is linked to the
      NRP identifier (denoted as NRP Selector ID) that may be carried in IPv6
      Hop-by-Hop options header or used in the encapsulation of MPLS. As the
      NRP Selector ID can impact packet forwarding in a network so care should
      be taken to protect this mission-critical or commercially sensitive
      information during provisioning, query and report of the control plane
      NRP ID in BGP.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>IANA has assigned the sub-TLV type as defined in Section 2 from "BGP
      Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" registry.</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[      Value     Description                     Reference
      ----------------------------------------------------
       123        NRP                         This document
]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Guoqi Xu, Lei Bao, Haibo Wang,
      Shunwan Zhuang and Susan Hares for their review and discussion of this
      document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <reference anchor="RFC2119"
                 target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
        <front>
          <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
          Levels</title>

          <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="1997"/>

          <abstract>
            <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to
            signify the requirements in the specification. These words are
            often capitalized. This document defines these words as they
            should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies
            an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and
            requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>

        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>

        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>

        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
      </reference>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4271'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7606'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9012'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9256'?>

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

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9830'?>

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

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-teas-nrp-scalability'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.jiang-spring-sr-policy-nrp'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9789'?>
    </references>
  </back>

  <!---->
</rfc>
