<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-07"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP p2mp sr policy">PCEP extensions for p2mp sr
    policy</title>

    <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H." role="editor"
            surname="Bidgoli">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Ottawa</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <email>hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="V." surname="Voyer">
      <organization>Bell Canada</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Montreal</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>daniel.voyer@bell.ca</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Saranya Rajarathinam" initials="S."
            surname="Rajarathinam">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Mountain View</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>US</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>saranya.Rajarathinam@nokia.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Anuj Budhiraja" initials="A." surname="Budhiraja">
      <organization>Cisco System</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>abudhira@cisco.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Rishabh" initials="R." surname="Parekh">
      <organization>Cisco System</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>riparekh@cisco.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
      <organization>Ciena</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Ottawa</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>ssivabal@ciena.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="27" month="June" year="2024"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>SR P2MP policies are set of policies that enable architecture for
      P2MP service delivery. This document specifies extensions to the Path
      Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful
      PCE to compute and initiate P2MP paths from a Root to a set of
      Leaves.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <!-- 1 -->

      <t>The draft <xref target="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"/> defines a
      variant of the SR Policy that uses <xref target="RFC9256"/> for
      constructing a P2MP segment to support multicast service delivery.</t>

      <t>A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy connects a Root node to a set of
      Leaf nodes, optionally through a set of intermediate replication nodes.
      A Replication segment <xref
      target="draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment"/>, corresponds to the
      state of a P2MP segment on a particular node and provide forwarding
      instructions for the segment.</t>

      <t>A P2MP Policy is relevant on the root of the P2MP Tree and it
      contains candidate paths. The candidate paths are made of path-instances
      and each path-instance is constructed via replication segments. These
      replication segments are programmed on the root, leaves and optionally
      intermediate replication nodes.</t>

      <t>Replication segments MAY be connected to each other directly, or they
      MAY be connected or steered via unicast SR segments or a segment
      list.</t>

      <t>For a P2MP Tree, a controller may be used to compute paths from a
      Root node to a set of Leaf nodes, optionally via a set of replication
      nodes. A packet is replicated at the root node and optionally on
      Replication nodes towards each Leaf node.</t>

      <t>There are two types of a P2MP Tree: Spray and Replication.</t>

      <t>A Point-to-Multipoint service delivery could be via Ingress
      Replication, known as Spray. The root unicasts individual copies of
      traffic to each leaf. The corresponding P2MP Policy consists of
      replication segments only for the root and the leaves and they are
      connected via a unicast SR Segment.</t>

      <t>A Point-to-Multipoint service delivery could also be via Downstream
      Replication, known as Replication Tree. The root and some downstream
      replication nodes replicate the traffic along the tree as it traverses
      closer to the leaves.</t>

      <t>The PCE discovers the root and the leaves via different methods. As
      an example, the leaves and the root can be explicitly configured on the
      PCE or PCC can update the PCE with the identity of the root and the
      leaves when it discovers them via multicast protocols like MP-BGP and
      MVPN procedures <xref target="RFC6513"/> or PIM. The controller can
      calculate the P2MP Policy and any of its associated replication segments
      from the root to the leaves with these info and any additional Service
      Leave Agreements (SLAs) that is used to construct the tree.</t>

      <t>This document defines PCEP objects, TLVs and the procedures to
      instantiate a P2MP Policy and Replication Segments.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Conventions used in this document">
      <!-- 2 -->

      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
      target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Overview of PCEP Operation in SR P2MP Network">
      <!-- 3-->

      <t>After discovering the root and the leaves the PCE programs the PCCs
      with relevant information needed to create a P2MP Tree.</t>

      <t>As per draft <xref target="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"/> a P2MP
      Policy is defined by Root-ID, Tree-ID and a set of leaves. A P2MP policy
      is a variant of SR policy as such it uses the same concept as draft
      <xref target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>. A P2MP policy
      is composed of a collection of SR P2mp Candidate Paths. Candidate paths
      are computed by the PCE and can be used for P2MP Tree redundancy. Only a
      single candidate path may be active at each time. Each candidate paths
      can be globally optimized, therefore it is consists of multiple
      path-instances. A path-instance can be considered as a P2MP LSP. If a
      candidate path needs to be globally optimized two path-instances can be
      programmed from the root the leaves and via make before break procedures
      the candidate path can be switched from path-instance 1 to the 2nd
      path-instance. The forwarding states of these path-instances are build
      via replication segments, in short each path-instance initiated on the
      root has its own set of replication segments on the Root, Transit and
      Leaf nodes.</t>

      <t>A replication segment is set of forwarding instructions on a specific
      node. Each instruction may be a PUSH or SWAP operation before forwarding
      out of an interface, or a POP action on bud and leaf nodes.</t>

      <t>PCE could also calculate and download additional information for the
      replication segments, such as protections next-hops for link protection
      (FRR).</t>

      <section title="High level view of P2MP Policy Objects">
        <!-- 3.1 -->

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>SR P2MP Policy<list style="symbols">
                <t>Is only relevant on the Root of the P2MP tree and is a
                policy on PCE. It is downloaded only on the root node and is
                identified via &lt;Root-ID, Tree-ID&gt; It contains the
                following information: <list style="symbols">
                    <t>Root node of the P2MP Segment</t>

                    <t>Set of Leaf nodes of the P2MP Segment</t>

                    <t>Tree-ID, which is a unique identifier of the P2MP tree
                    on the Root</t>

                    <t>A set of Candidate paths belonging to the policy</t>

                    <t>Optional Constraints used to build these candidate
                    paths</t>
                  </list></t>
              </list></t>
          </list><list style="symbols">
            <t>Candidate Path:<list style="symbols">
                <t>Is used for P2MP Tree redundancy where the candidate path
                with the highest preference is the active path.</t>

                <t>Each Candidate Path can contain two path-instance for
                global optimization procedures (i.e. make before break)</t>

                <t>Contains information regarding originator, discriminator,
                preference, path-instances</t>
              </list></t>

            <t>Path-instance:<list style="symbols">
                <t>Is used for global optimization of the candidate path.
                Multiple path-instance can be present under a candidate path
                but only a single path instance is active at a time.</t>

                <t>A path instance is identified via &lt;Root-ID, Tree-ID,
                Instance-ID&gt;</t>
              </list></t>

            <t>Replication Segment:<list style="symbols">
                <t>Is the forwarding information needed on each replication
                node for building the forwarding path for each path-instance
                of the P2MP Candidate path.</t>

                <t>Explained further in upcoming sections, there are 2 ways to
                identify the replication segment, depending on the type of
                replication segment (shared replication segment or non-shared
                replication segment)<list style="symbols">
                    <t>It is identified via Tree-ID and Root-ID and
                    path-instance for non-shared replication segment.</t>

                    <t>It is identified via Node-ID, Replication-ID, for
                    shared replication segment. As per <xref
                    target="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"/> a shared
                    replication segment is not associated to a tree and is
                    used for constructing by-pass tunnels.</t>

                    <t>Contains forwarding instructions, in the form of a list
                    of outgoing segments each of which may be a segment list
                    or a single replication segment with next-hop
                    information.</t>

                    <t>On the forwarding plane the Replication Segment is
                    identified via the incoming Replication SID.</t>

                    <t>Replication segment information is downloaded on any
                    node that is replicating the packet on the path of the
                    tree including the Root, Transit and Leaf nodes
                    respectively.</t>
                  </list></t>
              </list></t>
          </list></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Existing drafts used for defining a P2MP Policy">
        <t>This document attempts to leverage existing IETF draft and RFC
        documents which define PCEP objects, to update the PCE with Root and
        Leaves information when PCC Initiated method is used. Similarly,
        existing documents are utilized where feasible to update the PCC with
        relevant information to build the P2MP Policy and its Replication
        Segments. This document introduces new TLVs and Objects specific to a
        programing P2MP policy and its replication segment.</t>

        <section title="Existing Documents used by this draft">
          <!-- 3.1 -->

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t><xref target="RFC8231"/> The bases for a stateful PCE, and
              reuses the following objects or a variant of them<list
                  style="symbols">
                  <t>&lt;SRP Object&gt;</t>

                  <t>&lt;LSP Object&gt;</t>

                  <t>A variation of the LSP identifier TLV is defined in this
                  draft, to support P2MP LSP Identifier</t>
                </list></t>

              <t><xref target="RFC8306"/> P2MP capabilities advertisement</t>

              <t><xref target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>
              Candidate paths for P2MP Policy is used for Tree Redundancy. As
              an example, a P2MP Policy can have multiple candidate paths.
              Each protecting the primary candidate path. The active path is
              chosen via the preference of the candidate path.</t>

              <t><xref target="RFC3209"/> Defines the instance-ID, instance-ID
              is used for global optimization of a candidate path with in a
              P2MP policy. Each Candidate path can have 2 path-instances.
              These path-instances are equivalent to sub-lsps (instance-IDs).
              There are used for MBB and global optimization procedures.
              instance-ID is equivalent to LSP ID</t>

              <t><xref target="RFC9256"> </xref> Segment-list, used for
              connecting two non-adjacent replication policy via a unicast
              binding SID or Segment-list.</t>

              <t><xref target="RFC8306"> </xref> P2MP End Point objects, used
              for the PCC to update the PCE with discovered Leaves.</t>

              <t><xref target="RFC9050"/> for programming and identifying the
              Replication Segment. A new PCE CC Capability sub Tlv is
              introduced to indicated the support to handle PCE CC based label
              download for SR P2MP.</t>

              <t><xref target="draft-ietf-pce-multipath"/> Forwarding
              instruction for a P2MP LSP is defined by a set of SR-ERO
              sub-objects in the ERO object, ERO-ATTRIBUTES object and
              MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV as defined in this draft.</t>

              <t><xref target="RFC8664"/> SR-ERO Sub Object used in the
              multipath.</t>
            </list>It should be noted that the <xref
          target="draft-hb-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-yang"/> can provide further
          details of the high level P2MP Policy Model.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="P2MP Policy Identification">
          <t>A P2MP Policy and its candidate path can be identified on the
          root via the P2MP LSP Object. This Object is a variation of the LSP
          ID Object defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/> and is as follow:</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>PLSP-ID: <xref target="RFC8231"/>, is assigned by PCC and is
              unique per candidate path. It is constant for the lifetime of a
              PCEP session. Stand-by candidate paths will be assigned a new
              PLSP-ID by PCC. Stand-by candidate paths can co-exist with the
              active candidate path.</t>

              <t>Root-ID: is equivalent to the first node on the P2MP path, as
              per <xref target="RFC3209"/>, Section 4.6.2.1</t>

              <t>Tree-ID: is equivalent to Tunnel Identifier color which
              identifies a unique P2MP Policy at a ROOT and is advertised via
              the PTA in the BGP AD route or can be assigned manually on the
              root. Tree-ID needs to be unique on the root.</t>

              <t>Instance-ID: LSP ID Identifier as defined in RFC 3209, is the
              path-instance identifier and is assigned by the PCE. The
              candidate path can have up to two path-instance for global
              optimization. Instance-IDs are assigned by PCE per
              path-instance, they are unique within the P2MP Policy. Two or
              more P2MP policy can reuse the same Instance-ID assigned to
              their corresponding path-instances. A path-instance for a
              candidate path of a P2MP policy should program same Instance-ID
              on the root, transit and leaf nodes when it is programing its
              replication segments on the PCC.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="Replication Segment Identification ">
          <t>The key to identify a replication segment is also a P2MP LSP
          Object. With varying encoding rules for the SR-P2MP-LSP- IDENTIFIER
          TLV which will be explained in later sections.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="PCECC Use in Replication Segment">
          <t>PCECC and a variant of CCI object is used in Replication Segment
          to identify a cross connect. A cross connect is a incoming SID and
          set of outgoing interfaces and their corresponding SID or SID List.
          The CCI objects contains the incoming SID and the outgoing
          interfaces which are presented via the ERO objects, which each may
          contain a segment list.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="High Level Procedures for P2MP SR LSP Instantiation">
        <t>A P2MP policy can be instantiated via the PCC or the PCE depending
        on how the root and the leaves are discovered. This document describes
        two way to discover the root and the leaves:</t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>They can be configured and identified on the controller and are
            considered PCE initiated.</t>

            <t>They can be discovered on the PCC via MVPN procedures <xref
            target="RFC6513"/> or legacy multicast protocols like PIM or IGMP
            etc... and are considered PCC initiated.</t>
          </list></t>

        <section title="PCE-Init Procedure ">
          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>PCE is informed of the P2MP request through its API or
              configuration mechanism to instantiate a P2MP tunnel. PCE will
              be programmed with the Root and a set of leaf nodes.</t>

              <t>PCE will initiate the P2MP Policy for the request, by sending
              a PCInitiate message to the Root. The PCInitiate message will be
              programmed with a unique Instance-ID for the path-instance (P2MP
              tunnel) within the P2MP Policy. For the root PCInitiate message
              ONLY the tree-id should be set to 0 by the PCE, for transit and
              leaf nodes the PCE can set the tree-id same as the tree-id
              assigned by the PCC root. Note in PCE initiate the
              endpoint-object can be added optionally to the PCInitiate
              message for providing the leaf list to the PCC.</t>

              <t>Root in response to the PCInitiate message, will generate
              PLSP-ID for the candidate paths and will use the instantiated
              Instance-ID from the PCE for the Path-Instance (LSP-ID)
              contained with in the candidate path. The tree-id for the P2MP
              Policy are filled by the PCC root node as well. PCC will reports
              back the PLSP-ID and tree-id with PCE assigned Instance-ID via
              PCRpt message</t>

              <t><list style="symbols">
                  <t>Optionally, the Root can add any additional leaves that
                  were discovered by multicast procedures in this PCRpt
                  message.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>PCE will send a PCInitiate message to the Root, Transit and
              the Leaf nodes to download the Replication Segment information.
              These messages will utilize the CCI object to identify the p2mp
              cross connect and encode the forwarding instruction
              information.</t>

              <t>PCE will then send a PCUpdate to the root indicating the
              association information (Candidate path) , and implicitly
              indicate it to bind to the latest CCI information
              downloaded.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="PCC-Init Procedure ">
          <t>Root node (PCC) discovers the leaves (as an example via MVPN
          Procedures or other mechanism), the following communication happens
          between the PCE and PCCs</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>Root sends a PCRpt message for P2MP policy to PCE including
              the Root-ID, Tree-ID, PLSP-ID, symbolic-path-name, and any
              leaves discovered until then. This PCRpt message also includes a
              association object. In addition:</t>

              <t><list style="symbols">
                  <t>Since the instance-id is set by the PCE, the root will
                  set the instance-id to value to 0 in the RCRpt message</t>

                  <t>For the association object, root will fill the
                  association type according to the association type defined
                  in this draft. The association ID SHOULD be set to value 1
                  as done in <xref
                  target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>. The
                  association source is set to the Root PCC Address.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>PCE on receiving of this report, will generate a Instance-ID
              for this path-instance of the candidate path and compute the
              P2MP Policy and its replication segments.<list style="symbols">
                  <t>PCE will send a PCInitiate message to the Root, Transit
                  and the Leaf nodes to download the Replication Segment
                  information. These messages will utilize the CCI object to
                  encode the forwarding instruction information.</t>

                  <t>PCE will then send a PCUpdate to the root indicating the
                  association information (Candidate path) , and implicitly
                  indicate it to bind to the latest CCI information
                  downloaded.</t>
                </list></t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="Common Procedure ">
          <t>The following procedures are the same for PCE or PCC Init.</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>PCE will download the replication segments for the
              Candidate-path's path-instances to all the leaves and transit
              nodes using PCInitiate message with the same Instance-ID that
              was assigned for the path-instance on the root, PLSP-ID = 0,
              symbolic path name, Root-address, Tree-id(assigned by the root
              an obtained via P2MP Policy creation). This PCInitiate message
              includes the EROs needed for the replication segments. These
              messages will utilize the CCI object to encode the forwarding
              instruction information.</t>
            </list></t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>Any new candidate path for the P2MP Policy is downloaded by
              PCE to the Root by sending a PCInitiate message <list
                  style="symbols">
                  <t>it should be noted, PLSP-ID, Path-Instance ID are
                  generated by the PCC for these new candidate paths and their
                  Path-instances</t>

                  <t>Any update to the Candidate Paths or Replication Segments
                  is done via the PCUpd message. Association object need to be
                  present for Candidate Path PCUpdate and PCRpt message. CCI
                  object needs to be present the replication segment
                  updates.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>The PCE will also download the necessary replication segment
              for the candidate path and its path-instances to the root,
              leaves and the transit nodes via a PCInit message</t>
            </list><list style="symbols">
              <t>New leaves can be discovered via Multicast procedures, and
              new replication segments can be instantiated or existing one
              updated to reach these leaves<list style="symbols">
                  <t>If these leaves reside on routers that are part of the
                  P2MP LSP path, then PCUpd is sent from PCE to necessary PCCs
                  (LEAVES, TRANSIT or ROOT) with the correct PLSP-ID,
                  Instance-ID, Tree-ID and CC-ID.</t>

                  <t>If the new leaves are residing on routers that are not
                  part of the P2MP Tree yet, then a PCInitiate message is sent
                  from PCE to these new leaves with PLSP- ID=0 and Instance-ID
                  that the PCE has reserved for that path-instance and end to
                  end P2MP tree.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>The active candidate-path is indicated by the PCC through the
              operational bits(Up/Active) of the LSP object in the PCRpt
              message. If a candidate path needs to be removed, PCE sends PC
              Initiate message, setting the R-flag in the LSP object and R bit
              in the SRP-object.</t>

              <t>To remove the entire P2MP-LSP, PCE needs to send PCInitiate
              remove messages for every candidate path of the P2MP POLICY to
              the root and send PCInitiate remove messages for every
              Replication Segment on all the PCCs on the P2MP Tree. The R bit
              in the LSP Object as defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>, refers
              to the removal of the LSP as identified by the
              SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV (defined in this document). An all zero
              (SR-P2MP-LSP-ID-TLV defines to remove all the state of the
              corresponding PLSP-ID.</t>

              <t>A candidate path is made active based on the preference of
              the path. If the Root is programed with multiple candidate paths
              from different sources, as an example PCE and CLI, based on its
              tie-breaking rules, if it selects the CLI path, it will send a
              report to PCE for the PCE path indicating the status of
              label-download and sets operational bit of the LSP object to UP
              and Not Active . At any instance, only one path will be
              active</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="Global Optimization of the Candidate Path">
          <t>When a P2MP LSP needs to be optimized for any reason (i.e. it is
          taking a FRR tunnel or new routers are added to the network) a
          global optimization of the candidate path is possible.</t>

          <t>Each Candidate Path can contain two Path-Instances. The current
          unoptimized Path-Instance is the active instance and its replication
          segments are forwarding the multicast PDUs from the root to the
          leaves. However the second optimized Path-Instance will be setup
          with its own unique replication segments throughout the network,
          from the Root to the leaves. These two Path-Instances can co-exist.
          The two Path-Instances are uniquely identified by their Instance-ID
          in the SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV (defined in this document). After the
          optimized LSP has been downloaded successfully PCC MUST send two
          reports, reporting UP of the new path indicating the new LSP-ID, and
          a second reporting the tear down of the old path with the R bit of
          the LSP Object SET with the old Instance-ID in the
          SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV. This MBB procedure will move the multicast
          PDUs to the optimized Path-Instance.</t>

          <t>The leaf should be able to accept traffic from both
          Path-Instances to minimize the traffic outage by the Make Before
          Break process.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="local optimizatoin">
          <t>When one of the PCCs involved in the LSP lacks the capability to
          support more than one instance, the possibility of achieving global
          MBB (make before break) is compromised. However, with knowledge of
          the PCCs' advertised capabilities, the PCE can detect this
          limitation and instead opt for local re-optimization of the
          candidate path. In such cases, the PCE can compute the optimized LSP
          but send the PCUpd message using the existing Instance for candidate
          path, specifically targeting the PCCs where the optimized LSP
          triggers a change in forwarding state.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="Fast Reroute">
          <t>Currently this draft identifies the Facility FRR procedures. In
          addition, only LINK Protection procedures are defined. How the
          Facility Path is built and instantiated is beyond the scope of this
          document.</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[          R
         | |
          T
          |
         ---
        |   |
        L1 L2

        Figure 1



          R---F1
          |    |
          T---F2
          |
         ---
        |   |
        L1 L2

        Figure 2]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>As an example, in figure 1 both R and T are configured with
          replication segments. There are two interface between R and T. One
          can be used as primary and second as a bypass in case the primary
          interface is down. There can be 2 method to protect the primary
          interface.</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>The two replication segments on R and T can take advantage of
              unicast SR to connect to each other. In this case the LFA of
              unicast SR can be utilize to protect the primary interface
              between R and T.</t>

              <t>The replication segment provides protection nexthop, the
              protection nexthop can be programmed to take the alternate
              interface between R and T to protect the primary interface.</t>
            </list></t>

          <t>As a second example, in figure 2, R and T connected directly and
          via network F1..F2. In this example as per example 1 unicast SR can
          be used to connect the two replication segments and in this case the
          unicast SR LFA or R-LFA or TI-LFA can be used to protect the direct
          link between R-T via F1. That said if there is no unicast SR
          available with in the network, the PCE optionally can setup a shared
          replication point on F1 and F2 and protect all path-instances that
          are traversing R-T via this shared replication segment.</t>

          <t>In addition, PHP procedure and implicit null label on the bypass
          path can be implemented to reduce the PCE programming on the MP
          PCC.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="Connecting Replication Segment via Segment List">
          <t>There could be nodes between two replication segment that do not
          support P2MP Policy or Replication segment. It is possible to
          connect two non-adjacent Replication segments via a unicast segment
          routing path and SID list. The SID list can be comprised of any IGP
          supported segment types (ex: Binding, Adjacency, Node). This
          information is encoded via the SR-ERO sub-objects and ERO-attributes
          objects. The last segment in an encoding SID list MUST be a
          replication segment</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="SR P2MP Policy and Replication Segment TLVs and Objects">
        <!-- 3.3 -->

        <t/>

        <section title="SR P2MP Policy Objects">
          <t>SR P2MP Policy can be constructed via the following objects</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[  <P2mp Policy> ::= <Common Header>
                    <SRP>
                    <P2MP LSP> 
                    <association-list>
                    
optionally a list of end-point can be added. 
This is true weather it is PCC initiated or PCE initiated
                    
                    [<end-point-list>}                       
]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>
        </section>

        <section title="Replication Segment Objects">
          <t>Replication segment can be constructed via the following
          objects:</t>

          <figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[ <Replication Segment> ::= <Common Header>
                           <SRP>
                           <P2MP LSP> 
                           (<cci-list>|
                            (<CCI><intended-path>))
                           <cci-list> ::=  <CCI>
                                           [<cci-list>]
                           <intended-path> ::= 
                                  ((<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)
                                   [<intended-path>])                        
]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>Path-attribute as per <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-multipath"/></t>
        </section>

        <section title="P2MP Policy and Replication Segment general considerations ">
          <t>The new objects and TLV's defined in this document can be
          included in PCRpt, PcInitiate and PcUpd messages.</t>

          <t>It should be noted that every PcRpt, PcInitiate and PCUpd
          messages will contain full list of the Leaves and segment and
          forwarding information that is needed to build the Candidate path
          and its Replication segments. They will never send the delta
          information related to the new leaves or forwarding information that
          need to be added or updated. This is necessary to ensure that PCE or
          any new PCE is in sync with the PCC.</t>

          <section title="Path Attribute Object ">
            <t>This draft uses <xref target="draft-ietf-pce-multipath"/> to
            identify each out-going interface in the replication segment. In
            addition each out-going interface can be protected by a backup
            path. The Path Attributes Object is used to provide the relation
            between the primary path and its backup path as per draft <xref
            target="draft-ietf-pce-multipath"/>.</t>

            <t>Note: Multipath weight TLV MUST not be used and should be
            ignored when revived. Composite Candidate Path TLV SHOULD NOt be
            present and ignored if present. </t>

            <t>When a replication segment is being updated or new out-going
            interfaces are added to a specific replication segment, the PCRpt,
            PCInitiate and PCUpd messages sent via PCEP maintains the previous
            ERO Path IDs and generates new Path IDs for new instructions. The
            PATH IDs are maintained for each specific forwarding instructions
            until the instructions are deleted. For example: When the first
            leaf is added, the PCE will update with Path ID 1 to the PCC. When
            the second leaf is added, according to the path calculated, PCE
            might just append the existing instruction Path ID 1 with a new
            Path ID 2 to construct the new PCUpd message.</t>
          </section>

          <section title="CCI Object">
            <t>The CCI Object is used to identify the entire cross connect of
            incoming segment and the set of outgoing Interfaces and their
            corresponding SIDs/SIDList. Any modification to the cross connect
            should use this CCI ID to identify the cross connect uniquely.
            Leaves and their corresponding Path IDs can be removed from the
            cross connect identified via the CCI. The CC-ID is assigned by the
            PCE.</t>

            <t>The Central Control Instructions (CCI) Object used by the PCE
            to specify the controller instructions is defined in <xref
            target="RFC9050"/>. <xref
            target="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr"/> defines
            CCI object-type for SR-MPLS. This document redefines a new version
            of the SR-MPLS CCI object-type for SR P2MP Policy in upcoming
            sections.</t>
          </section>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Object Format">
      <!-- 4 -->

      <section title="Open Message Extension">
        <!-- 4.1 -->

        <t>A PCE does not advertise its P2MP capability during discovery, PCEP
        should be used to allow a PCC to discover, during the Open Message
        Exchange, which PCEs are capable of supporting SR P2MP path
        computation. To satisfy this requirement, we extend the PCEP OPEN
        object by defining an optional TLV to indicate the PCE's capability to
        perform SR P2MP path computations. This new TLV is called
        SR-P2MP-POLICY-CAPABILITY. The inclusion of this TLV in an OPEN object
        indicates that the sender can perform SR P2MP path computations. The
        capability TLV is meaningful only for a PCE, so it will typically
        appear only in one of the two Open messages during PCE session
        establishment. However, in the case of PCE cooperation (e.g.,
        inter-domain), when a PCE behaving as a PCC initiates a PCE session.
        it SHOULD also indicate its path computation capabilities.</t>

        <t>This draft defines a new SR-P2MP capability TLV with type TBD</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![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=TBD       |           Length=4              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |      Number of Instances    |       number of replication     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Flags          |           reserved              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>Number of Instances 16 bits - Number of instances the advertising
        PCEP speaker supports. This is meaningful for PCEs. PCEs can determine
        the least number of instances that could be created for a SR P2MP
        policy.</t>

        <t>Number of replication 16 bits - number of out going interfaces that
        the system is capable of having per multicast state.</t>

        <t>Flags 16 bits - Not used currently</t>

        <t/>

        <t>Upon the receipt of an Open message, the receiving PCEP peer MUST
        determine whether the suggested PCEP session characteristics
        (leaf-types) are acceptable. If the suggested leaf-types are not
        acceptable to the receiving peer, it MUST send an PCEP Error message
        (PCErr) with Error-Type=2 (Capability not supported) and error-value X
        (new error type assigned by IANA incompatible SR P2MP leaf types) (See
        Section 4.5.2 for leaf-types)</t>

        <t/>
      </section>

      <section title="PCE Capabliity SubTLV ">
        <t>If a PCEP speaker advertises SR P2MP Policy Capability then it MUST
        include the PST = 1 in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV as per <xref
        target="RFC8664"/></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Association Type Capability">
        <t>A Assoc-Type-List TLV as per <xref target="RFC8697"/> section 3.4
        should be send via PCEP open object with following association
        type</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[   +-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
   | Association Type  | Association Name           | Reference        |
   | Value             |                            |                  |
   +-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
   | TBD1              | P2MP SR Policy Association | This document    |
   +-------------------+----------------------------+------------------+]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>OP-CONF-Assoc-RANGE (Operator-configured Association Range)should
        not be set for this association type and must be ignored.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Symbolic Name in PCInit Message from PCC">
        <t>This document reuses symbolic path name from <xref
        target="RFC8231"/> section 7.3.2. For P2MP Policy a symbolic path is
        unique for a Candidate Path of the P2MP Policy on the PCC. It is
        recommended for the symbolic path name to be root-id+tree-id+cp
        discriminator.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="P2MP Policy Specific Objects and TLVs">
        <section title="P2MP Policy Association Group for P2MP Policy">
          <t>Two ASSOCIATION object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined in
          <xref target="RFC8697"/>. The ASSOCIATION object includes
          "Association type" indicating the type of the association group.
          This document adds a new Association type. Association type = TBD1
          "P2MP SR Policy Association Type" for SR Policy Association Group
          (P2MP SRPAG).</t>

          <t>NOTE: for PCC initiate the Association object is present in the
          first PCRpt message that is send by the PCC to PCE to indicate the
          initiation of the P2MP policy and its candidate path, this first
          PCRpt message does not have a corresponding PCUpdate message but it
          does include the Association object accordingly.</t>

          <t>NOTE: The Association Source should be set to the root address of
          the P2MP tree.</t>

          <t/>

          <t>In par with <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/> section 4.2,
          P2MP policy reuses the four TLVs used in the SRPA object. P2MP
          policy also redefines the extended association ID TLV:</t>

          <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR Policy
              Name</t>

              <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV: (mandatory) encodes P2MP SR Policy
              Candidate path Identifier</t>

              <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR Policy
              Candidate path name.</t>

              <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFRENCE TLV: (optional) encodes P2MP SR
              Policy Candidate path preference value.</t>

              <t>In addition to above the extended association ID TLV has been
              modified to address the P2MP Policy</t>
            </list></t>

          <section title="Extended Association ID TLV">
            <t>In par with <xref
            target="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/> the Extended
            Association ID TLV MUST be included and it MUST be in the
            following format for the P2MP Policy</t>

            <t><figure>
                <artwork><![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 = 31            |             Length = 4        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          TREE-ID                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
              </figure></t>

            <t>Length: 4 byte</t>

            <t>Tree-ID: Tree ID that the replication segment is part of as per
            draft-ietf-spring-sr-p2mp-policy</t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section title="P2MP-END-POINTS Object">
          <t>In order for the Root to indicate operations of its
          leaves(Add/Remove/Replace-all), the PC Report message is extended to
          include P2MP End Point &lt;P2MP End-points&gt; Object which is
          defined in <xref target="RFC8306"/></t>

          <t>It SHOULD be noted, the absence of the P2MP-END-POINTS Object
          means that there is no change in the leaf endpoint of the
          policy.</t>

          <t>The format of the PC Report message is as follow:</t>

          <t>&lt;Common Header&gt;</t>

          <t>[&lt;SRP&gt;]</t>

          <t>&lt;LSP&gt;</t>

          <t>[&lt;association-list&gt;]</t>

          <t>[&lt;end-points-list&gt;]</t>

          <t/>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[   IPV4-P2MP END-POINTS:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Leaf type                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Source IPv4 address                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Destination IPv4 address                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                           ...                                 ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Destination IPv4 address                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   IPV6-P2MP END-POINTS:   
 
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Leaf type                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                Source IPv6 address (16 bytes)                 |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |              Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes)              |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                           ...                                 ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |              Destination IPv6 address (16 bytes)              |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>Leaf Types (derived from <xref target="RFC8306"/> section 3.3.2)
          :</t>

          <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>New leaves to add (leaf type = 1)</t>

              <t>Old leaves to remove (leaf type = 2)</t>

              <t>the entire pce leaf list is overwritten and replaced with the
              new leaf list (leaf type = 5)</t>
            </list></t>

          <t>Note a PCE speaking node MUST NOT combine leaf type 1 and 2 with
          leaf type 5.</t>

          <t>Note a PCE speaking node SHOULD NOT have the same node present in
          the leaf type 1 and 2 if both leaf types are present.</t>

          <t>A given P2MP END-POINTS object gathers the leaves of a given
          type. Note that a P2MP report can mix the different types of leaves
          by including several P2MP END-POINTS objects. The END-POINTS object
          body has a variable length. These are multiples of 4 bytes for IPv4,
          multiples of 16 bytes, plus 4 bytes, for IPv6.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="P2MP Policy and Replication Segment Identifier Object and TLV">
        <t>As it was mentioned previously both P2MP Policy and Replication
        Segment are identified via the LSP object and more precisely via the
        SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV</t>

        <t>The P2MP Policy uses the PLSP-ID to identify the Candidate Paths
        and the Instance-ID to identify a Path-Instance with in the Candidate
        path.</t>

        <t>On other hand the Replication Segment uses the SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV to
        identify and correlate a Replication Segment to a P2MP Policy</t>

        <t>As it was noted previously on the Root, the P2MP Policy and the
        Replication Segment is downloaded via the same PCUpd message.</t>

        <section title="Extension of the LSP Object, SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV ">
          <t>The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of <xref
          target="RFC8231"/>. It specifies the PLSP-ID to uniquely identify an
          LSP that is constant for the life time of a PCEP session. Similarly,
          for a P2MP tunnel, the PLSP-ID identify a Candidate Path uniquely
          with in the P2MP policy.</t>

          <t>The LSP Object MUST include the new SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV
          (IPV4/IpV6) defined in this document below. This is a variation to
          the P2MP object defined in <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp"/></t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[IPV4-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV:

       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=TBD            |           Length=10           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Root                                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Tree-ID                                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Instance-ID           | Reserved      |  Flags    |R|A|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


IPv6-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID-TLV :

        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=TBD            |           Length=22           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                  Root                                         |
      +                          (16 octets)                          +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                             Tree-ID                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Instance-ID           | Reserved      |  Flags    |R|A|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>The type (16-bit) of the TLV is TBD (need allocation by
          IANA).</t>

          <t>Root: Source Router IP Address</t>

          <t>Tree-ID: Unique Identifier of this P2MP LSP on the Root.</t>

          <t>Instance-ID : Contains 32 Bit instance ID. Instance-id 0 is
          reserved.</t>

          <t>Reserved: 8 bits reserved for future use</t>

          <t>Flags: 8 bits, A - Activate the Instance-ID, R - Remove the
          Instance-ID</t>

          <t>At any given time, only one instance SHOULD be active. Activating
          one instance entails deactivating all other instances, with the
          condition that the active instance MUST have a non-zero value.</t>

          <t>The (A) flag is meaningful for Root PCC and PCEs. PCE MUST be
          setting (A) flag in the PCupd containing SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID TLV for
          activating the instance. The decision regarding when to set the (A)
          flag can be made locally on the PCE. E.g., this decision can be
          based on factors such as receiving PCRpt messages from all PCCs for
          the new instance or utilizing a timer-based approach to ensure that
          the data plane is completely configured on all PCCs. It's important
          to note that determining the appropriate timing for activating the
          new instance is not within the scope of this document. After the
          activation of the P2MP Policy any PCUpd MUST include the (A) flag in
          the P2MP-Instance TLV.</t>

          <t>Root PCC MUST set the (A) flag in the PCRpt as a response to
          receiving a PCupd message with the (A) flag set.</t>

          <t>If a PCE receives a PCRpt with the (A) flag set in response to a
          PCUpd message that did not have the (A) flag set, then PCE MUST
          treat this as an error. In such a case, PCE MUST send an PCEP Error
          message (PCErr) with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an Invalid Object)
          and error-value (X) (Invalid active instance).</t>

          <t>For transit or leaf PCCs, receipt of a PCUpd message with the (A)
          flag MUST be treated as an error. Transit or leaf PCCs MUST send an
          PCEP Error message (PCErr) with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation)
          and error-value (X) (Attempted activating instance on Transit or
          leaf PCC).</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                     |PCC|                    |PCE|
                     +-+-+                    +-+-+
                       |                        |
   1) LSP state Report | -------- PCRpt ------> |
      With PLSP-ID and |  (SRP,                 |
      Instance ID      |   LSP (SR-P2MP-LSPID), |
                       |   P2MP-END-POINT)      |
                       |                        |
                       | <------- PCUpd ------- |2) PCUpd message sent
                       |  (SRP,                 |   to the PCC with
                       |   LSP (SR-P2MP-LSPID), |   Path info and activating
                       |   Association,         |   instance.
                       |   P2MP SR Pol. ID TLV, |                                                       
                       |   CPATH_ID TLV,        |                                                       
                       |   P2MP-END-POINT,      |                                                      
                       |   CCI, PATH_ATTRIB,    |                                                        
                       |   SR-ERO)              |
                       |                        |
                       |                        |
   3) LSP State Report |---- PCRpt message ---->|
     (echoing Instance |                        |
       Active)         |                        |
                       |                        |
]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Replication Segment">
        <t>As per <xref target="draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment"/> a
        replication segment has a next-hop-group which MAY contain a single
        outgoing replication SID or a list of SIDs (sr-policy-sid-list) In
        either case there needs to be a replication SID identifying the
        replication state on a downstream replication node. This means two
        replication segments can be directly connected or connected via a
        unicast SR domain.</t>

        <section title="The format of the replication segment message">
          <t>The format of a Replication Segment message encoding is similar
          to P2MP Policy. However, the P2MP Policy contains the association
          object and the replication segment message does not contain the
          association object. In addition the replication segment uses the CCI
          object to identify a P2MP cross connect. The replication segment is
          downloaded individually to the root, transit and leaf nodes without
          the P2MP Policy. The P2MP Policy is a Root Concept. The replication
          segment uses SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV as its identifier. The TLV is coded
          differently for shared and non-shared case</t>
        </section>

        <section title="PCECC">
          <t>The CCI Object as defined in <xref target="RFC9050"/> is used to
          identify a forwarding instruction in the Replication Segment. A
          forwarding instruction is incoming SID and a set of outgoing
          branches. The CCI Object-Type of 1 is used for the MPLS Label. The
          label in the CCI Object is the incoming SID. The outgoing SIDs are
          defined by the ERO Objects.</t>

          <t>The CCI Object can be include in Reports, initiate and Update
          messages for Replication Segments.</t>

          <t>The PCInitiate message defined in <xref target="RFC8281"/> and
          extended in <xref target="RFC9050"/> is further extended to support
          SR-P2MP replication segment based central control instructions.</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[   The format of the extended PCInitiate message is as follows:
        <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                 <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
     Where:
        <Common Header> is defined in "RFC5440"

        <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
                                     [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]

        <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
                             (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
                              <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>|
                              <PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control>)

        <PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control> ::= <SRP>
                                                <LSP>
                                                (<cci-list>|
                                                (<CCI><intended-path>))

        <cci-list> ::=  <CCI>
                        [<cci-list>]

      <intended-path> ::= ((<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)
                          [<intended-path>])                        

     Where:
         <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and
         <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> are as per
         [RFC8281].
]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>The LSP and SRP object is defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>.
          The &lt;intended-path&gt; is as per <xref target="RFC8281"/> <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-multipath"/> (PATH-ATTRIB and ERO).</t>

          <figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[The format of the PCRpt message is as follows:

         <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
                             <state-report-list>
      Where:

         <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]

         <state-report> ::= (<lsp-state-report>|
                             <central-control-report>)

         <lsp-state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
                                <LSP>
                                <path>

         <central-control-report> ::= [<SRP>]
                                      <LSP>
                                      (<cci-list>|
                                      (<CCI><intended-path>))

         <cci-list> ::=  <CCI>
                         [<cci-list>]

       Where:
         <path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP object are
         also defined in [RFC8231]. 
         The <intended-path> is as per [draft-ietf-pce-multipath] (PATH-ATTRIB
         and ERO).

]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>This document extends the use of PCUpd message with SR-P2MP CCI
          as follows:</t>

          <figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[      <PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
                          <update-request-list>
   Where:

      <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>[<update-request-list>]

      <update-request> ::= (<lsp-update-request>|
                             <central-control-update>)

      <lsp-update-request> ::= <SRP>
                               <LSP>
                               <path>

      <central-control-update> ::= <SRP>
                                   <LSP>
                                   (<CCI><intended-path>)  

   Where:
      <path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP object are
      also defined in [RFC8231].            
      The <intended-path> is as per [draft-ietf-pce-multipath] (PATH-ATTRIB
      and ERO).


]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t/>
        </section>

        <section title="Label action rules in replicating segment">
          <t>Any modification to the cross connect should use this CCI ID to
          As per [draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment] a replication
          identify the cross connect uniquely. Leaves and their corresponding
          segment has a next-hop-group which MAY contain a single outgoing
          Path IDs can be removed from the cross connect identified via the
          replication SID or a list of SIDs (sr-policy-sid-list) In either
          case CCI. The CC-ID is assigned by the PCE.</t>

          <t><xref target="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr"/>
          defines CCI object-type for SR-MPLS. This document redefines a new
          version of the SR-MPLS CCI object-type for SR P2MP Policy in
          upcoming sections.</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                            CC-ID                              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      MT-ID    |    Algorithm  | role  |     flags         |V|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       SID/Label/Index                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                               |
//                        Optional TLV                         //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>Flags:</t>

          <t>The V and the L flags are defined as per <xref
          target="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr"/></t>

          <t>The node action and role of ingress, transit, leaf or bud, is
          indicated via the 4 bit roles field</t>

          <t><list style="symbols">
              <t>Head, role type = 1</t>

              <t>Transit, role type = 2</t>

              <t>Leaf, role type = 3</t>

              <t>Bud, role type = 4</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="SR-ERO Rules ">
          <t>Forwarding information of a replication segment can be configured
          and steered via many different mechanisms. RFC <xref
          target="RFC8664"/> defines the NAI types.</t>

          <t>As an example a replication SID can be steered via:</t>

          <t><list style="numbers">
              <t>Replication SID steered with an IPv4/IPv6 directly connected
              nexthop (RFC 8664 NAI type 3, 4, 6 (adjacency)) <list
                  style="symbols">
                  <t>In this case there will two SR-ERO in the ERO Object,
                  with the Replication SID SR-ERO at the bottom and the
                  IPv4/IPv6 SR-ERO on the top.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>Replication SID steered with an IPv4/IPv6 loopback address
              that reside on the directly connected router. (NAI type 1..2
              (node)) <list style="symbols">
                  <t>In this case there will two SR-ERO in the ERO Object,
                  with the Replication SID SR-ERO at the bottom and the
                  IPv4/IPv6 SR-ERO on the top.</t>
                </list></t>

              <t>Replication SID steered with unnumbered IPv4/IPv6 directly
              connected Interface (NAI type 5 (adjacency unnumbered)</t>

              <t>Replication SID steered via a SR adjacency or node SID<list
                  style="symbols">
                  <t>In this case even a sid-list can be used to traffic
                  engineer the path between two Replication Segment</t>

                  <t>The Replication SID SR-ERO is at the bottom while the
                  segments describing the path are on top in order.</t>
                </list></t>
            </list></t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Tree Deletion">
      <t>The P2MP policy and its replication segment can be delete by the PCC
      or by the PCE. to delete the P2MP policy all the Candidate paths
      associated to that P2MP policy need to be deleted. The last Candidate
      path that is being deleted, will delete the P2MP Policy Instance as well
      on the PCE or PCC.</t>

      <t>To delete Candidate paths there are two methods:</t>

      <t><list style="numbers">
          <t>The Candidate paths can be deleted by deleting all the
          path-instances associated with them and the last path-instance that
          is deleted will trigger the Candidate path to be deleted.</t>

          <t>The Candidate path can be deleted entirely and this will delete
          all the associated path-instances for that candidate path as
          well.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>When PCE is deleting a Candidate path or a path instance it should
      delete all the replication segments of that Candidate path or
      path-instance as well before it moved to the next Candidate path or path
      instance.</t>

      <section title="PCC Initiated ">
        <t>For PCC to delete a Candidate path, Root send a PCRpt message with
        the R bit of the LSP object set and all the fields of the SR-P2MP-
        LSP-ID TLV set to 0(indicating to remove all state and path-instances
        associated with this P2MP tunnel). The PCE in response sends a
        PCInitiate message with R bit in the SRP object SET to all nodes along
        the path to indicate deletion of the entries. Note in this case the
        instance-id can be set 0 with the R bit set to indicate removing the
        entire Candidate path and all its path-instances.</t>

        <t>For PCC to delete a path-instance, Root send a PCRpt message with
        the R bit of the LSP object set and all the fields of the SR-P2MP-
        LSP-ID TLV set to 0 but the instance-id value (indicating to remove
        the specific path-instances associated with this P2MP tunnel). The PCE
        in response sends a PCInitiate message with R bit in the SRP object
        SET to all nodes along the path to indicate deletion of the entries.
        Note in this case the instance-id has to be set accordingly with the R
        bit set to indicate removing the specific path-instances. This is
        useful for the global optimization case where after downloading the
        optimize path-instance and ensuring the path-instance is operational
        the PCC removed that old path-instance.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="PCE Initiated ">
        <t>For PCE to delete the Candidate path or path instance, the above
        can be implemented without the PCC PCRpt message.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Fragmentation ">
      <t>The Fragmentation bit in the LSP object (F bit) can be used to
      indicate a fragmented PCEP message</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Some packet examples ">
      <section title="Report for Leaf Add">
        <t>This is an example of PCC initiated P2MP Policy. The PCC will send
        a Report message to the PCE to initiat a P2MP Policy with a set of
        leaves that are discovered via Next Generation MVPN procedures as per
        <xref target="RFC6513"/>.</t>

        <t>In addition, since the PCC is initiating the P2MP Policy, it does
        populate the PLSP-ID for the candidate path. PCC will leave the
        instance-id for the Path-Instance to 0 and the instance-id is assigned
        by the PCE.</t>

        <figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[        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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Flags = 0                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        SRP-ID-number  = 0                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                             | PST = TBD       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                               <LSP OBJECT>
      |                PLSP-ID = 1            |     A:1,D:1,N:1       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=17             |           Length=<var>        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            symbolic path name                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type=TBD          |  Length                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Root = A                                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Tree-ID = Y                                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Instance-ID = 0                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                              <P2MP END POINT OBJECT>
      |                          Leaf type = 5                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Source IPv4 address = A                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Destination IPv4 address = D                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Destination IPv4 address = E                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>

      <section title="P2MP Policy Candidate path Init">
        <t>The following packet is the PCE creating the candidate path for the
        P2MP Policy and downloading the replication segment with the same
        message on the root.</t>

        <t>It should be noted combining the P2MP Policy candidate path
        creation and replication segment only is possible on the root.</t>

        <t>As such this message contains both association object and the CCI
        object. The CCI Object contains the incoming Binding SID and wraps all
        the Path Attribute messages and their corresponding EROs.</t>

        <t>The PLSP-ID are populated with the same ID as the previous PCC
        report message and the Instance-ID is assigned by the PCE.</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Flags = 0                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        SRP-ID-number  = 1                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                             | PST = TBD       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                             <LSP OBJECT>
      |                PLSP-ID = 1            |     A:1,D:1,N:1,C:0   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=17             |           Length=<var>        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            symbolic path name                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type=TBD          |  Length                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Root =A                                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Tree-ID = Y                                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Instance-ID = L1                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            <ASSOCIATION OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Reserved              |            Flags            |0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Association type= SR-P2MP-PAG |      Association ID = z       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              IPv4 Association Source = <pce-address>          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type=P2MP SR Policy ID    |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Root  = A                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           TREE-ID = 0                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Type=P2MP SR Policy Name   |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                     P2MP SR Policy Name                       ~
      |                                                               | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-path ID  |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |ProtOrigin 10  |    Reserved                                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Originator ASN                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                       Originator Address = <pce-address>      |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Discriminator = 1                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-path Name|             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~               P2MP SR Policy Candidate Path Name              ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Type=P2MP SR Pol Cand-Path Pre |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           Preference = 100 <default>          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                              <P2MP END POINT OBJECT>
      |                          Leaf type = 5                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Source IPv4 address = A                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Destination IPv4 address = D                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Destination IPv4 address = E                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            <CCI OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            CC-ID = X                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Reserved1            |             Flags         |0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Label = 0             |     Reserved2         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       <PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flags                           | Oper|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              ERO-path Id = 1                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Backup Path Count = 1   |             Flags           |0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Backup Path ID 2                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=Node Role      |           Length=4            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Role = ingress |                 Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <ERO-OBJECT>
                         <SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>

      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 1|     Flags   |0|0|1|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                ipv4-address  = NHD1           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 0|     Flags   |0|1|0|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SID = d1                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       <PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flags                           | Oper|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              ERO-path Id = 2                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Backup Path Count = 0   |             Flags           |1|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=TBD            |           Length=4            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Role = ingress |                 Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <ERO-OBJECT>
                         <SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>

      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 1|     Flags   |0|0|1|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                ipv4-address  = NHD2           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 0|     Flags   |0|1|0|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SID = d2                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Replication segment PCE Initiated on Transit and LEaves">
        <t>The following packet examples shows the replication segment
        initiation via a PCE on transit nodes and/or leaves node.</t>

        <t>Note:</t>

        <t><list style="numbers">
            <t>This packet is generated from PCE to instantiate the
            replication segment, as such the PLSP-ID is set to zero. PCC will
            assign these value and report them back to PCE.</t>

            <t>The instance-id was assigned by the PCE for the entire
            path-instance (P2MP tree)</t>

            <t>This is a replication segment instantiation as such there is no
            association object.</t>

            <t>The LSP Object Root A and Tree-ID Y associates this replication
            segment to the corresponding Candidate path and path instance on
            the root node.</t>
          </list>there is no association object present in the packet.</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Flags = 0                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        SRP-ID-number  = 1                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  TLV Type = 28 (PathSetupType)| TLV Len = 4                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                             | PST = TBD       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                             <LSP OBJECT>
      |                PLSP-ID = 0            |     A:1,D:1,N:1,C:0   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=17             |           Length=<var>        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            symbolic path name                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type=TBD          |  Length                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Root =A                                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Tree-ID = Y                                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Instance-ID = L1                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            <CCI OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            CC-ID = X                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Reserved1            |             Flags         |0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Label = d1            |     Reserved2         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       <PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flags                           | Oper|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              ERO-path Id = 1                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Backup Path Count = 1   |             Flags           |0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Backup Path ID 2                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=TBD            |           Length=4            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Role           |                 Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <ERO-OBJECT>
                         <SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>

      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 1|     Flags   |0|0|1|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                ipv4-address  = NHE1           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 0|     Flags   |0|1|0|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SID = e1                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       <PATH-ATTRIBUTES OBJECT>
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flags                           | Oper|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              ERO-path Id = 2                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Backup Path Count = 0   |             Flags           |1|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=TBD            |           Length=4            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Role           |                 Reserved                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                           <ERO-OBJECT>
                         <SR-ERO-SUB OBJECT>

      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 1|     Flags   |0|0|1|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                ipv4-address  = NHE2           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|   Type=36   |     Length    |  NT= 0|     Flags   |0|1|0|0|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         SID = e2                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Example Workflows ">
      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[                 +-------+                             +-------+
                  |PCC    |                             |  PCE  |
                  |Root   |                             +-------+
           +------|       |                                 |
           | PCC  +-------+                                 |
           | Transit| |                                     |
    +------|        | |---PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,SRP-ID=1--------->| PCECC LSP
    |PCC   +--------+ |   N=1,root-addr,tree-id=a,          | SR-Policy
    |        |  |     |   instance-id =0,                   | Report to
    |Leaf    |  |     |   p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)(optnl)| PCE
    +--------+  |     |   association-obj                   |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1,    | Update  
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| CP              
        |       |     |   p2mp-end-points, association-obj  | 
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      association-object             |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |<---------------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Leaf
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Z,C=0,                       | Replication
        |       |     |  O=0,L=z,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  | Segment(RS)
        |       |     |                                     |
        |---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Z,Label=z,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Transit
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y,C=0,                       | RS
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  | 
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,             | Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Root
        |       |     |   CC-ID=X,C=0,                      | RS
        |       |     | O=0,L=x,p2mp-end-                   |
        |       |     |   points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
        |       |     |   ERO,SR-ERO                        |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |    CC-ID=X,Label=x,O=0,             |
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO       |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =2,    |   
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Activate              
        |       |     |   p2mp-end-points                   | CP to last                   
        |       |     |                                     | RS
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =2, ->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |                                     |

]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>Note that on transit / leaf Initiate is with PLSP-ID = 0. Therefore
      PLSP-ID is locally unique to a node. It should be noted that the CC-ID
      does not need to be constant across all nodes that make up the path.</t>

      <t>PCE-Initiated workflow</t>

      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[                 +-------+                             +-------+
                  |PCC    |                             |  PCE  |
                  |Root   |                             +-------+
           +------|       |                                 |
           | PCC  +-------+                                 |
           | Transit| |                                     |
    +------|        | |                                     | PCECC LSP
    |PCC   +--------+ |                                     |
    |        |  |     |                                     |
    |Leaf    |  |     |                                     |
    +--------+  |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0,             | Initiate  
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=0,instance-id=b,| CP              
        |       |     |   p2mp-end-points, association-obj  | 
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      association-object,            |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdt,PLSP-ID=1,                 | Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Root RS
        |       |     |   CC-ID=X,C=0,                      |
        |       |     | O=0,L=x,p2mp-end-                   |
        |       |     |   points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
        |       |     |   ERO,SR-ERO                        |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |    CC-ID=X,Label=x,O=0,             |
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO       |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |<---------------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Leaf RS
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Z,C=0,                       |
        |       |     |  O=0,L=z,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Z,Label=z,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Transit RS
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y,C=0,                       |
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=c,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=0, -------------|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y,C=0,                       |
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y,Label=y,O=0,          |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1,    | Bind and 
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Activate
        |       |     |   p2mp-end-points,                  | CP to last                  
        |       |     |                                     | RS
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |


]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>MBB Workflow:</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[Common (PCE-INIT, PCC-INIT) MBB 

                 +-------+                             +-------+
                  |PCC    |                             |  PCE  |
                  |Root   |                             +-------+
           +------|       |                                 |
           | PCC  +-------+                                 |
           | Transit| |                                     |
    +------|        | |                                     | PCECC LSP
    |PCC   +--------+ |                                     |
    |        |  |     |                                     |
    |Leaf    |  |     |                                     |
    +--------+  |     |                                     |
        |<---------------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1, -------------| Download 
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| new RS on
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Z1,C=0,                      | Leaf
        |       |     |  O=0,L=z1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Z1,Label=z1,O=0,        |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=2, -------------| Download
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| new RS on
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y1,C=0,                      | Transit
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y1,Label=y1,O=0,        |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,             | Download 
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| new RS on
        |       |     |   CC-ID=X1,C=0,                     | Root
        |       |     | O=0,L=x1,p2mp-end-                  |
        |       |     |   points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
        |       |     |   ERO,SR-ERO                        |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1-------------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |    CC-ID=X1,Label=x1,O=0,           |
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO       |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCUpdate,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID =1,    | Bind and
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| Activate 
,       |       |     |   p2mp-end-points,                  | CP to last                  
        |       |     |                                     | RS
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, SRP-ID = 1,->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |<--PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,R=1          | Remove 
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| the old RS
        |       |     |   CC-ID=X1,C=0                      | from Leaf
        |       |     | O=0,L=x1,p2mp-end-                   |
        |       |     |   points(LeafType=5),path-attribute,|
        |       |     |   ERO,SR-ERO                        |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |     |-------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1, R=1--------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |    CC-ID=X1,Label=x1,O=0,             |
        |       |     |      p2mp-end-points(LeafType=5)    |
        |       |     |      path-attriute,ERO,SR-ERO       |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |<-------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=2, R=1----------| Remove the
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| old RS from
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Y1,C=0,                      | Transit
        |       |     |  O=0,L=y1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |       |-------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=2, R=1--------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Y1,Label=y1,O=0,        |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |<---------------PCInitiate,PLSP-ID=1,R=1-----------| Remove the 
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,| old RS from
        |       |     |  CC-ID=Z1,C=0,                       | Root
        |       |     |  O=0,L=z1,path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO  |
        |       |     |                                     |
        |---------------------PCRpt,PLSP-ID=1,R=1---------->|
        |       |     |   root-addr,tree-id=a,instance-id=b,|
        |       |     |       CC-ID=Z1,Label=z1,O=0,         |
        |       |     |      path-attribute,ERO,SR-ERO      |

]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t/>
    </section>

    <section title="IANA Consideration">
      <!-- 6 -->

      <section title="PCEP P2MP Association type">
        <t>This draft defines a new Association type for P2MP SR Policy. IANA
        is requested to allocate a new value from the existing IANA Registry
        "ASSOCIATION TYPE FIELD".</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[artwork
+----------------------------+---------+-----------------+
| Type                       |Value    | Reference       |
+----------------------------+---------+-----------------+
| P2MP SR Policy Association | TBD1    | This document   |
+----------------------------+---------+-----------------+]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="PCEP Generalized Endpoint Types">
        <t>This draft defines a new leaf-type for RFC8306 "P2MP- END-POINTS"
        object. IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the existing
        IANA Registry "Generalized Endpoint Types"</t>

        <t>The Authors are requesting value 5 for this new endpoint type.</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[artwork
    +------------------+--------------+-----------------+
    | Type             |Value         | Reference       |
    +------------------+--------------+-----------------+
    | P2MP- END-POINTS | 5            | This document   |
    +------------------+--------------+-----------------+

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="PCEP Capability type TLVs">
        <t>This draft extends the PCEP OPEN object by defining a new optional
        TLV to indicate the PCE's capability to perform SR-P2MP path
        computation.</t>

        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the IANA Registry
        "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[artwork
    +------------+---------------------------+----------------+
    | TLV Type   | Description               | Reference      |
    | Value      |                           |                |
    +------------+---------------------------+----------------+
    | TBD2       | SR-P2MP-POLICY-CAPABILITY | This document  |
    +------------+---------------------------+----------------+

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="PCEP TLV Type Indicators ">
        <t>This draft defines two new TLVs for Identifying the P2MP Policy and
        the Replication segment with IPv4 or IPv6 root address.</t>

        <t>IANA is requested to allocate two new values from the IANA Registry
        "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[artwork
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+
    | TLV Type   | Description                  | Reference      |
    | Value      |                              |                |
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+
    | TBD3       | IPV4-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID TLV | This document  |
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+
    | TBD4       | IPV6-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID TLV | This document  |
    +------------+------------------------------+----------------+

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="New CCI Object Type">
        <t>This draft defines a new CCI Object type SR P2MP Policy.</t>

        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new CCI Object type from the "CCI
        Object-Type" Class</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[artwork
    +------------+-----------------+----------------+
    | Object Type| Description     | Reference      |
    | Value      |                 |                |
    +------------+-----------------+----------------+
    | TBD5       | SR P2MP Policy  | This document  |
    +------------+-----------------+----------------+

]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <!-- 8 -->

      <t>TBD</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgments">
      <!-- 9 -->

      <t>The authors would like to thank Tanmoy Kundu and Stone Andrew at
      Nokia and Tarek Saad at Cisco for their feedback and major contribution
      to this draft.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Informative References">
      <!-- 10.2 -->

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy">
        <front>
          <title>D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang, "Segment
          Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2019"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment">
        <front>
          <title>D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang, "SR
          Replication Segment for Multi-point Service Delivery"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp">
        <front>
          <title>M. Koldychev, S. Sivabalan, C. Barth, S. Peng, H. Bidgoli
          "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate
          Paths</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pce-multipath">
        <front>
          <title>M. Koldychev, S. Sivabalan, T. Saad, H. Bidgoli, B. Yadav, S.
          Peng, G. Mishra "PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath
          Information"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="November" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-hb-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-yang">
        <front>
          <title>H.Bidgoli, D. Yoyer, R. Parekh, T.Saad, T.kundu "YANG Data
          Model for p2mp sr policy"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp">
        <front>
          <title>U. Palle, D. Dhody, Y.Tanaka, V. Beeram "Protocol Extensions
          for Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering
          Label"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="April" year="2019"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr">
        <front>
          <title>Z. Li, S. Peng, M. negi, Q. Zhao, C. Zhau "PCEP Extensions
          for Using PCE as a PCECC for SR MPLS SID"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9256">
        <front>
          <title>C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, D. Voyer, A. Bogdanov, P. Mattes
          "Segment Routing Policy Architecture"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC6513">
        <front>
          <title>E. Rosen, R. Aggerwal "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="February" year="2012"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8306">
        <front>
          <title>Q. Zhao, D. Dhody, R. Palleti, D.King "PCEP for
          Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
          Paths"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="November" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8231">
        <front>
          <title>E. Crabbe, I. Minei, J. Medved, R. Varga "PCEP Extensions for
          Stateful PCE"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="September" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC3209">
        <front>
          <title>D. Awduche, L. Berger, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G. Swallow
          "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="December" year="2001"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8697">
        <front>
          <title>I. Minei, E. Crabbe, S. Sivabalan, H. Ananthakrishnan, D.
          Dhody, Y. Tanaka "PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships
          between Sets of LSPs"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="January" year="2020"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8664">
        <front>
          <title>S. Sivabalan, C. Filsfils, J. Tantsura, W. Henderickx, J.
          Hardwick "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="December" year="2019"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8281">
        <front>
          <title>E. Crabbe, I. Minei, S. Sivabalan, R. Varga "PCEP Extensions
          for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="December" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9050">
        <front>
          <title>Z. Li, S. Peng, M. Negi, Q. Zhao, C. Zhou "PCEP Procedures
          and Extensions for Using the PCECC"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2021"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC2119">
        <front>
          <title>"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
          Levels"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

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

      <reference anchor="RFC5440">
        <front>
          <title>JP. Vasseur,JL. Le Roux "Path Computation Element
          Communication Protocol"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="2009"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
<!-- generated from file C:\Users\hbidgoli\Downloads\draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-08.nroff with nroff2xml 0.1.0 by Tomek Mrugalski -->
