<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" submissionType="IETF" docName="draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-11" category="std" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" xml:lang="en" sortRefs="false" consensus="yes" symRefs="true" tocInclude="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.12.3 -->
  <!-- Generated by id2xml 1.5.0 on 2020-03-06T17:47:05Z -->
    <front>
    <title abbrev="Performance Measurement for SR-MPLS">Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with MPLS Data Plane</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-11"/>
    <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Gandhi">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Canada</street>
        </postal>
        <email>rgandhi@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>cfilsfil@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer">
      <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
      <address>
        <email>daniel.voyer@bell.ca</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Stefano Salsano" initials="S." surname="Salsano">
      <organization>Universita di Roma "Tor Vergata"</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Italy</street>
        </postal>
        <email>stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen" initials="M." surname="Chen">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <email>mach.chen@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date day="06" month="June" year="2024"/>
    <workgroup>MPLS Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <t>
   Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm.   
   SR is applicable to Multiprotocol Label Switching
   data plane (SR-MPLS) as specified in RFC 8402. 
   RFC 6374 and RFC 7876 specify protocol mechanisms to enable efficient and accurate
   measurement of packet loss, one-way and two-way delay, as well as
   related metrics such as delay variation in MPLS networks.  
   RFC 9341 defines Alternate-Marking Method using Block Number (BN) for 
   data correlation mechanism for packet loss measurement.
   This document utilizes these mechanisms for Performance
   Delay and Loss Measurements in SR-MPLS networks,
   for both links and end-to-end SR-MPLS paths including Policies. </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="sect-1" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
   Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm for Software Defined Networks
   (SDNs). SR is applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes <xref target="RFC8402" format="default"/>.  SR takes advantage of the
   Equal-Cost Multipaths (ECMPs) between source and transit nodes,
   between transit nodes and between transit and destination nodes.  SR
   Policies as defined in <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"/> are used
   to steer traffic through a specific, user-defined paths using a list 
   of Segments.  A comprehensive SR Performance Measurement toolset is one of the
   essential requirements to measure network performance to provide
   Service Level Agreements (SLAs).</t>
      <t>
   <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> specifies protocol mechanisms to enable 
   the efficient and accurate measurement of performance metrics 
   in MPLS networks using query and response messages. 
   <xref target="RFC7876" format="default"/> specifies mechanisms for sending and
   processing out-of-band responses over an UDP return path when 
   receiving query messages defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>. 
   These mechanisms are also well-suited in SR-MPLS networks.</t>

   <t>
   <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/> defines Alternate-Marking Method using Block Number (BN) for 
   data correlation for packet loss measurement.
   </t>

   <t>
   This document utilizes the mechanisms defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>,
   <xref target="RFC7876" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/> 
   for Performance Delay and Loss Measurements in SR-MPLS networks,
   for both links and end-to-end SR-MPLS paths including Policies.
   </t>

   </section>

    <section anchor="sect-2" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Conventions Used in This Document</name>
      <section anchor="sect-2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>

        <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 BCP 14  <xref target="RFC2119" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"/>
   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
   </t>

      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Abbreviations</name>
        <t>
   ACH: Associated Channel Header.</t>
        <t>
   DM: Delay Measurement.</t>
        <t>
   ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.</t>
        <t>
   G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh).</t>
        <t>
   GAL: Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Label.</t>
        <t>
   LM: Loss Measurement.</t>
        <t>
   MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.</t>
        <t>
   PSID: Path Segment Identifier.</t>
        <t>
   SID: Segment Identifier.</t>
        <t>
   SL: Segment List.</t>
        <t>
   SR: Segment Routing.</t>
        <t>
   SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.</t>
        <t>
   TC: Traffic Class.</t>
        <t>
   TE: Traffic Engineering.</t>
        <t>
   TTL: Time-To-Live.</t>
        <t>
   URO: UDP Return Object.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-2.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Reference Topology</name>
        <t>
   In the Reference Topology shown in Figure 1, the querier node Q1
   initiates a query message and the responder node R1 transmits 
   a response message for the query message received.  The
   response message may be sent back to the querier node Q1  
   on the same path (same set of links and nodes) or a different 
   path in the reverse direction from the path taken towards the responder R1.
   </t>

   <t>
   The T1 is a transmit timestamp and T4 is a receive timestamp, both added by node Q1. 
   The T2 is a receive timestamp and T3 is a
   transmit timestamp, both added by node R1.
    </t>

        <t>SR is enabled with MPLS data plane on nodes Q1 and R1.
   The nodes Q1 and R1 may be directly connected via a link enabled with MPLS 
   (Section 2.9.1 of <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>) or a Point-to-Point (P2P) 
   SR-MPLS path <xref target="RFC8402" format="default"/>.
   The link may be a physical interface, virtual link,    
   or Link Aggregation Group (LAG) <xref target="IEEE802.1AX" format="default"/>, or 
   LAG member link.  The SR-MPLS path may be an SR-MPLS Policy 
   <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"/> on node Q1 
   (called head-end) with destination to node R1 (called tail-end).</t>
        <figure anchor="ure-reference-topology">
          <name>Reference Topology</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[

                       T1                T2
                      /                   \
             +-------+       Query         +-------+
             |       | - - - - - - - - - ->|       |
             |   Q1  |=====================|   R1  |
             |       |<- - - - - - - - - - |       |
             +-------+       Response      +-------+
                      \                   /
                       T4                T3
              Querier                       Responder
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-3" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Overview</name>
   <t>For delay and loss measurement in SR-MPLS networks, the procedures 
    defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC7876" format="default"/> 
    and <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/> are used in this document. Note that 
    the one-way, two-way and round-trip delay measurements are 
    defined in Section 2.4 of <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> and are further 
    described in this document for SR-MPLS networks. Similarly,
    the packet loss measurement is defined in Section 2.2 of <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> 
    and is further described in this document for SR-MPLS networks.</t>
      <t>The packet loss measurement using Alternate-Marking Method 
    defined in <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/> MAY use  
    Block Number (BN) for data correlation. This is achieved by 
    using the Block Number TLV extension defined in this document for MPLS networks.</t>
      <t>In SR-MPLS networks, the query and response messages 
    defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> are sent as following:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>For delay measurement, the query 
    messages MUST be sent on the same path as data traffic 
    for links and end-to-end SR-MPLS paths 
    to collect transmit and receive timestamps.</li>
        <li>For loss measurement, the query messages MUST be 
    sent on the same path as data traffic 
    for links and end-to-end SR-MPLS paths 
    to collect transmit and receive traffic counters 
    (e.g., for traffic received on the incoming link for the 
    link packet loss and for the incoming Path Segment Identifier (PSID) <xref target="RFC9545" format="default"/> for 
    the end-to-end SR-MPLS path packet loss).</li>
      </ul>
      <t>If it is desired in SR-MPLS networks that the same path 
    (same set of links and nodes) between the querier and 
    responder be used in both directions of the measurement, 
    it is achieved by using the SR-MPLS Return Path TLV 
    extension defined in this document.</t>
      <t>The performance measurement procedure for links can be used to compute
    extended Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics for delay and loss as described in
    this document. The metrics are advertised in the network using the routing protocol extensions
    defined in <xref target="RFC7471" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8570" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC8571" format="default"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-4" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Query and Response Messages</name>
      <section anchor="sect-4.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Query Message for Links and Policies</name>
        <section anchor="sect-4.1.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Query Message for Links</name>
          <t>
   The query message as defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> is sent over the links
   for both delay and loss measurement.  
   In each LSE in the MPLS label stack, the TTL value MUST be set to 255.
   </t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-4.1.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Query Message for SR-MPLS Policies</name>
          <t>
   An SR-MPLS Policy Candidate-Path may contain a number of Segment Lists (SLs) (i.e., stack of MPLS labels)
   <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"/>.  The 
   query messages MUST be transmitted using each SL of the SR-MPLS Policy Candidate-Path.  
   A query message for an end-to-end SR-MPLS Policy, used for delay and/or loss measurement,
   contains SR-MPLS label stack of the Segment List(s) of the Candidate-Path,
   with the G-ACh Label (GAL) at the bottom of the stack (with S=1) as shown in Figure 2.
   In each LSE in the MPLS label stack, the TTL value MUST be set to 255.
   </t>
          <figure anchor="ure-header-for-an-end-to-end-sr-mpls-policy">
            <name>Example Query Message Header for an End-to-end SR-MPLS Policy</name>
            <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  Label(1)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  Label(n)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  GAL (value 13)       | TC  |1|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved      |       Channel Type            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>
   The SR-MPLS label stack can be empty in the case of one hop SR-MPLS Policy with Implicit NULL label.</t>
          <t>For an SR-MPLS Policy, to ensure that the
    query message is processed by the intended responder,
    Destination Address TLV (Type 129) <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> 
    containing the address of the responder can be sent in the query
    messages.  The responder that supports this TLV MUST return Success 
    in "Control Code" <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> if it is the intended
    destination for the query. 
    Otherwise, it MUST return 0x15: Error - Invalid Destination Node Identifier <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>.
    </t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-4.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Response Message for Links and Policies</name>
        <section anchor="sect-4.2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>One-way Measurement Mode</name>
          <t>
   In one-way measurement mode defined in 
   Section 2.4 of <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>, the querier
   can receive "out-of-band" response messages with IP/UDP header by properly setting the UDP
   Return Object (URO) TLV in the query message.  The URO TLV
   (Type=131) is defined in <xref target="RFC7876" format="default"/> and includes the
   UDP-Destination-Port and IP Address.  When the querier
   sets an IP address and an UDP port in the URO TLV, the response message MUST be sent
   to that IP address as the destination address and UDP port as the destination port.
   In addition, the "Control Code" in the 
   query message MUST be set to "out-of-band response requested" <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-4.2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Two-way Measurement Mode</name>
          <t>
   In two-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>, 
   the response messages are preferred to be sent back in-band on 
   the same link or the same end-to-end SR-MPLS path (same set of 
   links and nodes) in the reverse direction to the querier.</t>
          <t>For links, the response message as defined in  <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>
   is sent back on the same incoming link where the query 
   message is received.  In this case, the "Control Code" 
   in the query message MUST be set to "in-band response requested" <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>.</t>
          <t>For end-to-end SR-MPLS paths, the responder transmits
   the response message (example as shown in Figure 2) 
   on a specific return SR-MPLS path 
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" format="default"/>.  The querier 
   can request in the query message to the responder to
   send the response message back on a given return path using the 
   SR-MPLS Segment List sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV defined in this document.</t>
         </section>
        <section anchor="sect-4.2.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Loopback Measurement Mode</name>
          <t>
   The Loopback measurement mode defined in Section 2.8 of <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> is
   used to measure round-trip delay for a bidirectional circular SR-MPLS path
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" format="default"/>.  
   In this mode, the received query messages MUST NOT be punted
   out of the fast path in forwarding (i.e., to slow path or control-
   plane) at the responder.  In other words, the responder
   does not process the payload and generate response messages. 
   The loopback function simply returns the received
   query message to the querier without responder 
   modifications <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>.</t>
          <t>
   The loopback mode is done by
   generating "queries" with the Response flag set to 1 and 
   adding the Loopback Request object (Type 3) <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>.
   The label stack in query messages in this case carry both the forward and reverse 
   paths in the MPLS header.  
   The GAL is still 
   carried at the bottom of the label stack (with S=1) (example as shown in Figure 2).</t>
         </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-5" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Delay Measurement</name>
      <section anchor="sect-5.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Delay Measurement Message Format</name>
        <t>
   As defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>, MPLS DM query and response messages
   use Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000C for delay
   measurement) <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>, which identifies the message type, and the
   message payload as defined in Section 3.2 <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> following the ACH.  For both links and end-to-end
   SR-MPLS Policies, the same MPLS DM ACH value MUST be used.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-6" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Loss Measurement</name>
      <t>
   The LM protocol can perform two distinct kinds of loss measurement as
   described in Section 2.9.8 of <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>.</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>In inferred mode, LM will measure the loss of specially generated
      test messages to infer the approximate data plane loss
      level.  Inferred mode LM provides only approximate loss
      accounting.</li>
        <li>In direct mode, LM will directly measure data plane packet loss.
      Direct mode LM provides perfect loss accounting, but may require
      hardware support.</li>
      </ul>
      <section anchor="sect-6.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Loss Measurement Message Format</name>
        <t>
   As defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>, MPLS LM query and response messages
   use Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000A for direct loss
   measurement or value 0x000B for inferred loss measurement), which
   identifies the message type, and the message payload  defined in Section 3.1 <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> following the
   ACH.  For both links and end-to-end 
   SR-MPLS Policies, the same MPLS LM ACH value MUST be used.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-6.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Combined Loss/Delay Measurement Message Format</name>
        <t>
   As defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>, Combined DM+LM query and response messages
   use Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000D for direct loss
   and delay measurement or value 0x000E for inferred loss and delay measurement), which
   identifies the message type, and the message payload  defined in Section 3.3 <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> following the
   ACH.  For both links and end-to-end 
   SR-MPLS Policies, the same MPLS DM+LM ACH value MUST be used.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-6.4" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Counters</name>
        <t>
   The PSID <xref target="RFC9545" format="default"/> 
   is carried in the received data packet for the traffic flow    
   under measurement for accounting received traffic 
   on the egress node of the SR-MPLS Policy.
   In direct mode, the PSID in the received query message  
   as shown in Figure 3 can be used to associate the receive 
   traffic counter on the responder to detect the transmit packet 
   loss for the end-to-end SR-MPLS Policy.</t>
        <t>In inferred mode, the PSID in the received query messages as 
   shown in Figure 3 can be used to count the received query 
   messages on the responder to detect the transmit packet loss
   for an end-to-end SR-MPLS Policy.</t>
        <figure anchor="ure-with-path-segment-identifier-for-sr-mpls-policy">
          <name>Example with Path Segment Identifier for SR-MPLS Policy</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  PSID                 | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  GAL (value 13)       | TC  |1|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved      |       Channel Type            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Different values of PSID can be used to measure packet loss per
   SR-MPLS Policy, per Candidate Path or per Segment List of the 
   SR-MPLS Policy <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"/>.</t>

      </section>

      <section anchor="sect-6.5" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Block Number for Counters</name>

    <t>
The packet loss measurement using Alternate-Marking Method (AMM) defined in <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/> MAY use Block Number (BN) for data correlation for the traffic flow under measurement. As defined in Section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/>, the block number is used to divide the traffic flow into consecutive blocks and counting the number of packets transmitted and received in each block for loss measurement.  
    </t>

    <t>
As described in Section 4.3 of <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/>, protocol-based distributed solution can be used to exchange values of counters on the nodes for loss measurement. That solution is further described in this document using the LM messages defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>.
    </t>

    <t>
The querier node assigns a block number to the block of data packets of the traffic flow under measurement. The querier counts the number of packets transmitted in each block. The mechanism for assignment of block number is a local decision on the querier and is outside the scope of this document.
    </t>

    <t>
The querier can use the procedure defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation" format="default"/>, for example, for marking the data packets of the traffic flow under measurement. 
The responder counts the number of received packets in each block based on the marking in the received data packets.
The querier and responder maintain separate sets of transmit and receive counters for each marking.
The marking can be used as a block number or a separate block number can be incremented when the marking changes.
    </t>

    <t>
The LM query and response messages defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> are used to measure packet loss for the block of data packets transmitted with the previous marking while data packets carry alternate marking. Specifically, LM query and response messages carry the transmit and receive counters (which are currently not incrementing) along with their block number to correlate for loss measurement.
    </t>

    <t>
"The assumption of the block number mechanism is that the measurement nodes are time synchronized" as specified in Section 4.3 of <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/> is not necessary as the block number on the responder can be synchronized based on the received LM query messages.
    </t>

    </section>

    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-7" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>TLV Extensions</name>
      <section anchor="sect-7.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Return Path TLV Extension</name>
        <t>
   In two-way measurement mode, the responder may transmit 
   the response message on a specific return path, for example, in an ECMP environment.  The querier
   can request in the query message to the responder to
   send a response message back on a given return path (e.g., co-routed
   SR-MPLS bidirectional path). This allows the responder to 
   avoid creating and maintaining additional states (containing return paths)
   for the sessions.</t>
        <t>The querier may not be directly reachable from the responder in a network.  The querier in this
   case MUST send its reachability path information to the responder
   using the Return Path TLV.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> defines query and response messages those can include
   or more optional TLVs.  New TLV Type (TBA1) is defined in this
   document for Return Path TLV to carry return path information in query
   messages.  The format of the Return Path TLV is shown in Figure 4:</t>
        <figure anchor="ure-return-path-tlv">
          <name>Return Path TLV</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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 = TBA1  |    Length     |      Reserved                 |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                    Return Path Sub-TLV                        |
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>

   <t>
   The Length is a one-byte field and is equal to the length of the Return Path Sub-TLV and the Reserved field in bytes. Length MUST NOT be 0.
   </t>

   <t>
   The Return Path TLV is a Mandatory TLV Type.  The querier MUST 
   only insert one Return Path TLV in the query message. 
   The responder that supports this TLV, MUST only process the first Return Path TLV
   and ignore the other Return Path TLVs if present.  
   The responder that supports this TLV, also MUST send response message back on 
   the return path specified in the Return Path TLV.  The responder
   also MUST NOT add Return Path TLV in the response message. 
   The Reserved field MUST be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on the receive side.
        </t>
        <section anchor="sect-7.1.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Return Path Sub-TLV Extension</name>
          <t>The Return Path TLV contains a Sub-TLV to carry the return path. 
   The format of the SR-MPLS Segment List Sub-TLV is shown in Figure 5. 
   The SR-MPLS Segment List Sub-TLV contains SR-MPLS Label Stack. 
   The Label entries in the Segment List MUST be in network order. The SR-MPLS Segment List Sub-TLV 
   in the Return Path TLV is of the following Type:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>Type (value 1): SR-MPLS Segment List of the Return Path</li>
          </ul>
          <figure anchor="ure-segment-list-sub-tlv-in-return-path-tlv">
            <name>SR-MPLS Segment List Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV</name>
            <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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=1     |    Length     |      Reserved                 |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  Label(1)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  Label(n)             | TC  |1|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>

   <t>The SR-MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit Label Stack Entry
   (LSE) that includes a 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC
   value and 1-bit EOS (S) field.
   An SR-MPLS Segment List Sub-TLV may carry only Binding SID label  
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid" format="default"/> of the Return SR-MPLS Policy.</t>

   <t>
   The Length is a one-byte field and is equal to the length of the label stack field and the Reserved field in bytes. Length MUST NOT be 0.
   </t>

   <t>The Return Path TLV MUST carry only one Return Path Sub-TLV and Segment List in Return Path Sub-TLV MUST contain at least one Segment. 
   The responder that supports this Sub-TLV, MUST only process the 
   first Return Path Sub-TLV and ignore the other Return Path Sub-TLVs if present.  
   The responder that supports this Sub-TLV, MUST send response message back on 
   the return path specified in the Return Path Sub-TLV.
   The Reserved field MUST be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on the receive side.
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-7.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Block Number TLV Extension</name>

        <t>
   <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> defines query and response messages those can include
   one or more optional TLVs.  New TLV Type (value TBA2) is defined in
   this document to carry the Block Number (8-bit) of the traffic
   counters in the LM query and response messages.  
   The format of the Block Number TLV is shown in Figure 6:</t>

        <figure anchor="ure-block-number-tlv">
          <name>Block Number TLV</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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 = TBA2  |    Length     | Reserved    |R| Block Number  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
   <t>
   The Length is a one-byte field and is equal to 2 bytes. 
   </t>

        <t>
   The Block Number TLV is a Mandatory TLV Type. 
   The querier MUST only insert one Block Number TLV in the query 
   message to identify the Block Number for the traffic counters in the forward direction.  
   The responder that supports this TLV, MUST only inert one Block 
   Number TLV in the response message to identify the Block 
   Number for the traffic counters in the reverse direction.
   The responder also MUST return the first Block Number TLV from the 
   query message and ignore the other Block Number TLVs if present.
   The R Flag MUST be clear in the query message and set in the response message.
   The Reserved field MUST be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on the receive side.
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="sect-9" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>ECMP for SR-MPLS Policies</name>
      <t>
   An SR-MPLS Policy can have ECMPs between the source and transit nodes,
   between transit nodes and between transit and destination nodes.
   Usage of Anycast SID <xref target="RFC8402" format="default"/> by an SR-MPLS Policy can result in ECMP
   paths via transit nodes part of that Anycast group.  The query and response 
   messages SHOULD be sent to traverse different ECMP paths to measure
   delay of each of the ECMP path of a Segment List of an SR-MPLS Policy Candidate-Path.</t>
      <t>
   Forwarding plane has various hashing functions available to forward
   packets on specific ECMP paths.  For SR-MPLS Policy, sweeping of
   entropy label <xref target="RFC6790" format="default"/> values can be used in query 
   and response messages to take advantage of the hashing function in 
   forwarding plane to influence the ECMP path taken by them.</t>
      <t>
   The considerations for loss measurement for different
   ECMP paths of an SR-MPLS Policy are outside the scope of this document.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-10" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Extended TE Link Metrics Advertisements</name>
      <t>
    The extended TE metrics for link delay and loss can be 
    computed using the performance measurement procedures described
    in this document and advertised in the routing domain as follows:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>For OSPF, ISIS, and BGP-LS, protocol extensions 
    defined in <xref target="RFC7471" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8570" format="default"/>, 
    and <xref target="RFC8571" format="default"/>, respectively, are used for
    advertising the extended TE link delay and loss metrics in the network.</li>
        <li>The extended TE link delay and loss metrics are advertised for
    Layer-2 LAG bundle member links in OSPF <xref target="RFC9356" format="default"/> 
    and ISIS <xref target="RFC8668" format="default"/> using the same protocol extensions defined in
    <xref target="RFC7471" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC8570" format="default"/>, respectively.</li>
        <li>The advertised delay-variance metric, Packet Delay Variation (PDV)
    is computed as described in Section 4.2 of <xref target="RFC5481" format="default"/>.</li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-11" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Backwards Compatibility</name>
      <t>
   The procedures defined in this document are backwards compatible with 
   the procedures defined in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> at both querier and responder. 
   If the responder does not support the new Mandatory 
   TLV Types defined in this document, 
   it MUST return Error 0x17: Unsupported Mandatory TLV Object as per <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-13" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>

      <t>
   The security considerations specified in <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC7471" format="default"/>,
   <xref target="RFC8570" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8571" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC7876" format="default"/>,
   and <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/> also apply to the procedures described in this document.</t>

      <t>
   The procedure defined in this document is intended for deployment in a single operator administrative domain.
   As such, querier node, responder node, forward and return paths are provisioned by the operator for the probe session.
   It is assumed that the operator has verified the integrity of the forward and return paths of the probe packets.</t>

      <t>
   The "Return Path" TLV extensions defined in this document may be used for potential
   address spoofing.  For example, a query message may carry a return path
   that has destination not local at the querier. 
   To prevent such possible attacks, the responder MAY drop the
   query messages when it cannot determine whether the return path has
   the destination local at the querier.  The querier may send a
   proper source address in the "Source Address" TLV that responder can use to make that determination,
   for example, by checking the access control list provisioned by the operator.
    </t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="sect-14" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>IANA is requested to allocate values for the following Mandatory
   TLV Types for <xref target="RFC6374" format="default"/> from the "MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object" 
   registry contained within the "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry set:</t>
      <table anchor="iana-tlv-type-tbl" align="center">
        <name>MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Types</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Value</th>
            <th align="center">Description</th>
            <th align="left">Reference</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">TBA1</td>
            <td align="center">Return Path TLV</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">TBA2</td>
            <td align="center">Block Number TLV</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <t>The Block Number TLV is carried in the query and response messages 
   and Return Path TLV is carried in the query messages.</t>
      <t>
   IANA is requested to create a sub-registry for "Return Path Sub-TLV Type".
   All code points in the range 0 through 175 in this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in
   <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.  Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this
   registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come, First
   Served" procedure as specified in <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>. 
   Remaining code points are allocated according to <xref target="iana-return-path-tbl" format="default"/>:
      </t>
      <table anchor="iana-return-path-tbl" align="center">
        <name>Return Path Sub-TLV Type Registry</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Value</th>
            <th align="center">Description</th>
            <th align="left">Reference</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">0 - 175</td>
            <td align="center">IETF Review</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">176 - 239</td>
            <td align="center">First Come First Served</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">240 - 251</td>
            <td align="center">Experimental Use</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">252 - 255</td>
            <td align="center">Private Use</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <t>This document defines the following values in the Return Path Sub-TLV Type sub-registry:</t>
      <table anchor="iana-return-path-type-tbl" align="center">
        <name>Return Path Sub-TLV Types</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Value</th>
            <th align="center">Description</th>
            <th align="left">Reference</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">0</td>
            <td align="center">Reserved</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">1</td>
            <td align="center">SR-MPLS Segment List of the Return Path</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">255</td>
            <td align="center">Reserved</td>
            <td align="left">This document</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="1997" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC6374" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6374.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks</title>
            <author initials="D." surname="Frost" fullname="D. Frost">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Bryant" fullname="S. Bryant">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2011" month="September"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6374"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6374"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC7876" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7876" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7876.xml">
          <front>
            <title>UDP Return Path for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks</title>
            <author initials="S." surname="Bryant" fullname="S. Bryant">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Sivabalan" fullname="S. Sivabalan">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Soni" fullname="S. Soni">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2016" month="July"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7876"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7876"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2017" month="May"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC9341" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9341.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Alternate-Marking Method</title>
            <author initials="G." surname="Fioccola" fullname="G. Fioccola" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="M." surname="Cociglio" fullname="M. Cociglio">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Mirsky" fullname="G. Mirsky">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="T." surname="Mizrahi" fullname="T. Mizrahi">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2022" month="December"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9341"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9341"/>
        </reference>

      </references>

      <references>
       <name>Informative References</name>

      <reference anchor="RFC5481" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5481.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement</title>
            <author initials="A." surname="Morton" fullname="A. Morton">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="B." surname="Claise" fullname="B. Claise">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2009" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5481"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5481"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC6790" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6790.xml">
          <front>
            <title>The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding</title>
            <author initials="K." surname="Kompella" fullname="K. Kompella">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Drake" fullname="J. Drake">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Amante" fullname="S. Amante">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="W." surname="Henderickx" fullname="W. Henderickx">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="L." surname="Yong" fullname="L. Yong">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2012" month="November"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6790"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6790"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC7471" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7471.xml">
          <front>
            <title>OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions</title>
            <author initials="S." surname="Giacalone" fullname="S. Giacalone">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="D." surname="Ward" fullname="D. Ward">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Drake" fullname="J. Drake">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="A." surname="Atlas" fullname="A. Atlas">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Previdi" fullname="S. Previdi">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2015" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7471"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7471"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8126" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
            <author initials="M." surname="Cotton" fullname="M. Cotton">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="T." surname="Narten" fullname="T. Narten">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2017" month="June"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8402" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8402.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Architecture</title>
            <author initials="C." surname="Filsfils" fullname="C. Filsfils" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Previdi" fullname="S. Previdi" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="L." surname="Ginsberg" fullname="L. Ginsberg">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="B." surname="Decraene" fullname="B. Decraene">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Litkowski" fullname="S. Litkowski">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="R." surname="Shakir" fullname="R. Shakir">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2018" month="July"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8402"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8402"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8570" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8570.xml">
          <front>
            <title>IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions</title>
            <author initials="L." surname="Ginsberg" fullname="L. Ginsberg" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Previdi" fullname="S. Previdi" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Giacalone" fullname="S. Giacalone">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="D." surname="Ward" fullname="D. Ward">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Drake" fullname="J. Drake">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="Q." surname="Wu" fullname="Q. Wu">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2019" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8570"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8570"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8571" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8571.xml">
          <front>
            <title>BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions</title>
            <author initials="L." surname="Ginsberg" fullname="L. Ginsberg" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Previdi" fullname="S. Previdi">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="Q." surname="Wu" fullname="Q. Wu">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Tantsura" fullname="J. Tantsura">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="C." surname="Filsfils" fullname="C. Filsfils">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2019" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8571"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8571"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8668" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8668.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS</title>
            <author initials="L." surname="Ginsberg" fullname="L. Ginsberg" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="A." surname="Bashandy" fullname="A. Bashandy">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="C." surname="Filsfils" fullname="C. Filsfils">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="M." surname="Nanduri" fullname="M. Nanduri">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="E." surname="Aries" fullname="E. Aries">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2019" month="December"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8668"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8668"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC9256" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9256.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Policy Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Ketan Talaulikar">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer">
              <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Alex Bogdanov">
              <organization>British Telecom</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Paul Mattes">
              <organization>Microsoft</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="July" year="2022"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9256"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC9356" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9356" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9356.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF</title>
            <author fullname="Ketan Talaulikar">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Peter Psenak">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="January" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9356"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC9545" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9545" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9545.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Path Segment Identifier in MPLS-Based Segment Routing Networks</title>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Han Li">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Cheng Li" role="editor">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Royi Zigler">
              <organization>Broadcom</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="February" year="2024"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9545"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-16.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks.</title>
            <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan">
              <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura">
              <organization>Microsoft Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Stefano Previdi">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Cheng Li (editor)">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="March" day="27" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-16"/>
        </reference>

       <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/ draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-13">
          <front>
            <title>Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method</title>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Xiao Min">
              <organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Tianran Zhou">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jinyou Dai">
              <organization> FiberHome</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Yoav Peleg">
              <organization> Broadcom</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="June" day="02" year="2024"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value=" draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-13"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-13.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing (SR) Paths</title>
            <author fullname="Cheng Li">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Quan Xiong">
              <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="February" day="13" year="2024"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-13"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="IEEE802.1AX">
          <front>
            <title>IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation</title>
            <author>
              <organization>
                   IEEE Std. 802.1AX
              </organization>
            </author>
            <date month="November" year="2008"/>
          </front>
        </reference>

      </references>
    </references>
    <section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>
   The authors would like to thank Thierry Couture and Ianik Semco for the discussions
   on the use-cases for the performance measurement in segment routing
   networks.  Authors would like to thank Patrick Khordoc, Ruby Lin and Haowei Shi for 
   implementing the mechanisms defined in this document.
   The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky and Xiao Min for providing
   many useful comments and suggestions.  The authors would also like to
   thank Stewart Bryant, Sam Aldrin, Tarek Saad, and Rajiv Asati for
   their review comments. Thanks to Huaimo Chen, Yimin Shen, and Xufeng Liu for MPLS-RT expert review and
   Zhaohui Zhang for RTGDIR early review.
   </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="false" anchor="contributors" toc="default">
      <name>Contributors</name>
      <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
Sagar Soni
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: sagsoni@cisco.com

Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com

Pier Luigi Ventre
CNIT
Italy
Email: pierluigi.ventre@cnit.it
]]></artwork>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
