Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-spring-srmpls-frr-ex

draft-chen-spring-srmpls-frr-ex







Network Working Group                                            H. Chen
Internet-Draft                                                 Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Z. Hu
Expires: 20 April 2024                               Huawei Technologies
                                                                 A. Wang
                                                           China Telecom
                                                                  Y. Liu
                                                            China Mobile
                                                               G. Mishra
                                                            Verizon Inc.
                                                         18 October 2023


                         SR-MPLS FRR Extension
                   draft-chen-spring-srmpls-frr-ex-03

Abstract

   The current SR FRR such as TI-LFA provides fast re-route protection
   for the failure of a node on an SR-MPLS path by the neighbor upstream
   node as point of local repair (PLR) of the failed node.  However,
   once the IGP converges, the SR FRR is no longer sufficient to forward
   traffic of the path around the failure, since the non-neighbor
   upstream node of the failed node will no longer have a route to the
   failed node.  This document describes a simple mechanism to extend
   the fast re-route protection for the failure on an SR-MPLS path after
   the IGP converges.  The mechanism protects the node SID, adjacency
   SID and binding SID of the failed node on the path.


Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.





Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 April 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Example SR-MPLS FRR Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  SR-MPLS Path with no BSID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Without any Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  Before IGP Converges on Failure . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.3.  After IGP Converges on Failure  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  SR-MPLS Path with BSID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  Without any Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.2.  Before IGP Converges on Failure . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.3.  After IGP Converges on Failure  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1.  Procedure on Non-neighbor Upstream Node . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Procedure on Neighbor Upstream Node . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12








Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


1.  Introduction

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] describes an SR FRR mechanism
   that provides fast re-route protection for the failure of a node on
   an SR-TE path by the neighbor upstream node as point of local repair
   (PLR) of the failed node.  However, once the IGP converges, the SR
   FRR is no longer sufficient to forward traffic of the path around the
   failure, since the non-neighbor upstream node of the failed node will
   no longer have a route to the failed node and drop the traffic.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths] proposes a solution
   in which a hold-down timer is configured on every node in a network.
   After the IGP converges on a node failure, when a node is going to
   delete the route to the failed node, instead of programming a route
   delete, it programs a tunnel/path to the node consisting of the Node
   SID of the nearside neighbor of the failed node followed by the
   original path in the packet.  The modified path will be in force
   until the hold-down timer expires.

   This document describes a simple mechanism to extend the fast re-
   route protection for the failure on an SR-MPLS path after the IGP
   converges.  The mechanism protects the node SID, adjacency SID and
   binding SID of the failed node on the path.

2.  Example SR-MPLS FRR Extension

   This section illustrates the extension to SR-MPLS FRR for the failure
   on SR-MPLS paths after the IGP converges through examples.  It shows
   the procedure on every related node on each path without any failure,
   with a failure before and after the IGP converges on the failure.

   Figure 1 shows an example topology with two SR-MPLS paths: Path 1 and
   Path 2 for explaining the extension.  They go through the same nodes
   and links, but represented differently.  The former does not have any
   binding SID (BSID).  The latter has a BSID of node N (BSID-N).

                  [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]-----[ N  ]-----[ Q1 ]
                 /  |   \   /  |   \   /  |   \   /  |   \
                /   |    \ /   |    \ /   |    \ /   |    \
   [CE1]------[A]   |     X    |     X    |     X    |    [C]-----[CE2]
                \   |    / \   |    / \   |    / \   |    /
                 \  |   /   \  |   /   \  |   /   \  |   /
                  [ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]

   Path 1:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}
   Path 2:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N} and
                          BSID-N associated with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}




Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


               Figure 1: Example Topology with SR-MPLS Paths

   SR-MPLS Path 1: A->P1->N->Q1->C is indicated at node A by node SID of
   P1 (SID-P1), node SID of N (SID-N), node SID of Q1 (SID-Q1) and node
   SID of C (SID-C).  SR-MPLS Path 2 is indicated at node A by {SID-
   P1,SID-N,BSID-N}, where BSID-N (binding SID of N) is associated with
   SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}.

2.1.  SR-MPLS Path with no BSID

2.1.1.  Without any Failure

   Figure 2 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
   of SR-MPLS path 1 without any failure.

        1.{SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
               |  2.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
               |         |   3.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
               |         |          |   4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
               |         |          |          |
               |         v          v          v
               |  [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]-----[ N  ]-----[ Q1 ]
               v /  |   \   /  |   \   /  |   \   /  |   \5.{SID-C}Pkt
        Pkt     /   |    \ /   |    \ /   |    \ /   |    \
   [CE1]------[A]   |     X    |     X    |     X    |    [C]-----[CE2]
                \   |    / \   |    / \   |    / \   |    /   6.Pkt
                 \  |   /   \  |   /   \  |   /   \  |   /
                  [ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]

   Path 1:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}

                   Figure 2: No BSID Without any Failure

   The results from nodes A, P1, P3, N, Q1 and C are as follows.

   1.  Node A as the ingress of the path adds SID-P1, SID-N, SID-Q1, and
       SID-C into a packet (Pkt) received from CE1 and sends the packet
       with the SIDs to node P1.  The packet sent to P1 is represented
       by "1.{SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".

   2.  Node P1 pops its SID-P1 from the packet received, sends the
       packet with top SID (SID-N) to P3 along the IGP shortest path to
       N according to its FIB entry for SID-N.  The packet sent to P3 is
       represented by "2.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".

   3.  Node P3 sends the packet with top SID (SID-N) to N along the IGP
       shortest path to N.  The packet sent to N is represented by
       "3.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".



Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


   4.  Node N pops its SID-N from the packet received, sends the packet
       with top SID (SID-Q1) to Q1 along the IGP shortest path to Q1
       according to its FIB entry for SID-Q1.  The packet sent to Q1 is
       represented by "4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".

   5.  Node Q1 pops its SID-Q1 from the packet received, sends the
       packet with top SID (SID-C) to C along the IGP shortest path to
       C.  The packet sent to C is represented by "5.{SID-C}Pkt".

   6.  Node C pops its SID-C and gets the packet without any SIDs, which
       is represented by "6.Pkt".

2.1.2.  Before IGP Converges on Failure

   Figure 3 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
   of SR-MPLS path 1 with no BSID when node N failed and before the IGP
   converges on the failure.

    1.{SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
               |
               |     2.{SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
               |         |
               |         v
               |  [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]     [ N  ]     [ Q1 ]
               v /  |   \   /  |   \3.{SID-Q1,    /  |   \5.{SID-C}Pkt
        Pkt     /   |    \ /   |    \  SID-C}Pkt /   |    \
   [CE1]------[A]   |     X    |     X    |     X    |    [C]-----[CE2]
                \   |    / \   |    / \   |    / \   |    /   6.Pkt
                 \  |   /   \  |   /   \  |   /4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
                  [ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]

   Path 1:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}

     Figure 3: Path with no BSID when N failed and before IGP converges

   The results from nodes A, P1, Q1 and C are the same as those
   described in Section 2.1.1.  The results from neighbor upstream node
   P3 of N and node N1 are as follows.

   3.  After detecting the failure of N, the neighbor upstream node P3
       of N pops SID-N from the packet received, re-routes the packet to
       node Q1 via node N1 without going through failed N.  The packet
       sent to N1 is represented by "3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".

   4.  Node N1 sends the packet to Q1 according to the top SID (SID-Q1)
       in the packet.  The packet sent to Q1 is represented by "4.{SID-
       Q1,SID-C}Pkt".




Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


2.1.3.  After IGP Converges on Failure

   Figure 4 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
   on SR-MPLS path 1 with no BSID when node N failed and after the IGP
   converges on the failure.

               1.{SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
               |
               |  [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]     [ N  ]     [ Q1 ]
               v /  |   \2.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt      /  |   \5.{SID-C}Pkt
        Pkt     /   |    \ /   |    \            /   |    \
   [CE1]------[A]   |     X    |     \          /    |    [C]-----[CE2]
                \   |    / \   |      \        /     |    /   6.Pkt
                 \  |   /   \  |       \      /4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
                  [ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
                                    ^
                                    |
                                    3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt

   Path 1:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,SID-Q1,SID-C}

     Figure 4: Path with no BSID when N failed and after IGP converges

   The results from nodes A, N1, Q1 and C are the same as those
   described above in Section 2.1.2.  The results from nodes P1 and P4
   are as follows.

   2.  Since SID-N is a failed node SID, non-neighbor upstream node P1
       pops SID-N from the packet, and sends the packet to P4 according
       to the top SID (SID-Q1) in the packet along the IGP shortest path
       to Q1.  The packet sent to P4 is represented by "2.{SID-Q1,SID-
       C}Pkt".

   3.  Node P4 sends the packet to N1 according to the top SID (SID-Q1)
       in the packet received.  The packet sent to N1 is represented by
       "3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".

   The non-neighbor upstream node P1 may determines whether a SID is a
   failed SID in the following way:

      IF there is a RIB/FIB entry for the SID (e.g., SID-N) and
         then the entry for the SID is to be removed after a SPF
      THEN the SID is a failed SID.

2.2.  SR-MPLS Path with BSID






Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


2.2.1.  Without any Failure

   Figure 5 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
   of SR-MPLS path 2 with BSID-N without any failure.

        1.{SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
               |  2.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
               |         |   3.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
               |         |          |   4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
               |         |          |          |
               |         v          v          v
               |  [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]-----[ N  ]-----[ Q1 ]
               v /  |   \   /  |   \   /  |   \   /  |   \5.{SID-C}Pkt
        Pkt     /   |    \ /   |    \ /   |    \ /   |    \
   [CE1]------[A]   |     X    |     X    |     X    |    [C]-----[CE2]
                \   |    / \   |    / \   |    / \   |    /   6.Pkt
                 \  |   /   \  |   /   \  |   /   \  |   /
                  [ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]

   Path 2:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N} and
                          BSID-N associated with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}

                Figure 5: Path with BSID Without any Failure

   The results from nodes A, P1, P3, and N are as follows.

   1.  Node A as the ingress of the path adds SID-P1, SID-N, and BSID-N
       into a packet (Pkt) received from CE1 and sends the packet with
       the SIDs to node P1.  The packet sent to P1 is represented by
       "1.{SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt".

   2.  Node P1 pops its SID-P1 from the packet received, sends the
       packet with top SID (SID-N) to P3 along the IGP shortest path to
       N according to its FIB entry for SID-N.  The packet sent to P3 is
       represented by "2.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt".

   3.  Node P3 sends the packet with top SID (SID-N) to N along the IGP
       shortest path to N.  The packet sent to N is represented by
       "3.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt".

   4.  Node N pops its SID-N from the packet received, replaces its
       BSID-N with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}, and sends the packet with
       top SID (SID-Q1) to Q1 along the IGP shortest path to Q1
       according to its FIB entry for SID-Q1.  The packet sent to Q1 is
       represented by "4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".

   The results from nodes Q1 and C are the same as those described in
   Section 2.1.1.



Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


2.2.2.  Before IGP Converges on Failure

   Figure 6 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
   of SR-MPLS path 2 with BSID-N when node N failed and before the IGP
   converges on the failure.

    1.{SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
               |
               |     2.{SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
               |         |
               |         v
               |  [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]     [ N  ]     [ Q1 ]
               v /  |   \   /  |   \3.{SID-Q1,    /  |   \5.{SID-C}Pkt
        Pkt     /   |    \ /   |    \  SID-C}Pkt /   |    \
   [CE1]------[A]   |     X    |     X    |     X    |    [C]-----[CE2]
                \   |    / \   |    / \   |    / \   |    /   6.Pkt
                 \  |   /   \  |   /   \  |   /4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
                  [ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]

   Path 2:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N} and
                          BSID-N associated with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}

     Figure 6: Path with BSID-N when N failed and before IGP converges

   The results from nodes A, P1, Q1 and C are the same as those
   described in Section 2.2.1.  The results from neighbor upstream node
   P3 of N and node N1 are as follows.

   3.  After detecting the failure of N, the neighbor upstream node P3
       of N pops SID-N from the packet received, replaces BSID-N in the
       packet with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}, and re-routes the packet to
       node Q1 via node N1 without going through failed N.  The packet
       sent to N1 is represented by "3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt".

   4.  Node N1 sends the packet to Q1 according to the top SID (SID-Q1)
       in the packet.  The packet sent to Q1 is represented by "4.{SID-
       Q1,SID-C}Pkt".

2.2.3.  After IGP Converges on Failure

   Figure 7 shows the result of executing procedure on each related node
   on SR-MPLS path 2 with BSID-N when node N failed and after the IGP
   converges on the failure.








Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


               1.{SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N}Pkt
               |
               |  [ P1 ]-----[ P3 ]     [ N  ]     [ Q1 ]
               v /  |   \2.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt      /  |   \5.{SID-C}Pkt
        Pkt     /   |    \ /   |    \            /   |    \
   [CE1]------[A]   |     X    |     \          /    |    [C]-----[CE2]
                \   |    / \   |      \        /     |    /   6.Pkt
                 \  |   /   \  |       \      /4.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt
                  [ P2 ]-----[ P4 ]-----[ N1 ]-----[ Q2 ]
                                    ^
                                    |
                                    3.{SID-Q1,SID-C}Pkt

   Path 2:A->P1->N->Q1->C, indicated at A by {SID-P1,SID-N,BSID-N} and
                          BSID-N associated with SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C}

      Figure 7: Path with BSID-N when N failed and after IGP converges

   The results from nodes A, Q1 and C are the same as those described
   above in Section 2.2.2.  The results from nodes P4 and N1 are the
   same as those described above in Section 2.1.3.  The result from node
   P1 is as follows.

   2.  Since SID-N is a failed node SID, non-neighbor upstream node P1
       pops SID-N from the packet, replaces BSID-N in the packet with
       SID list {SID-Q1,SID-C} and sends the packet to P4 according to
       the top SID (SID-Q1) in the packet along the IGP shortest path to
       Q1.  The packet sent to P4 is represented by "2.{SID-Q1,SID-
       C}Pkt".

3.  Procedures

   This section presents the procedures on a neighbor upstream node and
   a non-neighbor upstream node of node N on an SR MPLS path.

3.1.  Procedure on Non-neighbor Upstream Node

   For an SR-MPLS path with the node SID of node N (SID-N), suppose that
   node X is an non-neighbor upstream node of node N along the path,
   wherein SID-N follows the node SID of node X (SID-X) or the adjacency
   SID to node X in the packet to be transported by the path.  For
   example, SR-MPLS Path 1 and Path 2 in Figure 1 are from A to P1 to N
   to Q1 to C.  Node P1 is the non-neighbor upstream node of N.  At
   ingress node A of the path, node A adds the SIDs in the SID list into
   the packet to be transported by the path.






Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


   Without any failure or from the failure of node N to IGP convergence
   on the failure, the non-neighbor upstream node (such as P1) of node N
   pops its SID from the packet if any and sends the packet to the next
   hop node toward node N along the IGP shortest path to N.

   After node N failed and from the IGP convergence on the failure to
   global reroute, the non-neighbor upstream node (such as P1) of node N
   pops its SID (such as SID-P1) from the packet if any, pops SID-N from
   the packet and does one of the following:

   a.  If the current top SID in the packet is a node SID of a node
       named Nx, sends the packet toward Nx along the IGP shortest path
       to Nx.

   b.  If the current top SID in the packet is an adjacency SID of node
       N, obtains the remote node of the adjacency from the adjacency
       SID, replaces the adjacency SID with the node SID of the remote
       node, and sends the packet toward the remote node along the IGP
       shortest path to the remote node.

   c.  If the current top SID in the packet is a Binding SID (BSID) of
       node N, replaces the BSID in the packet with the SID list
       associated with the BSID, and does a. or b.  according to the
       current top SID in the packet (i.e., does a. if it is a node SID;
       does b. if it is an adjacency SID of N).  Note: Distributing the
       information about the BSID of N (including the BSID, the SID
       list, the ID of N) to upstream nodes of N is out of scope of this
       document, but described in [I-D.chen-pce-mbinding] and
       [I-D.chen-idr-mbinding].

3.2.  Procedure on Neighbor Upstream Node

   Suppose that node Y is the neighbor upstream node of node N on an SR-
   MPLS path.  Without any failure, node Y sends the packet received
   from the path to node N according to the top SID in the packet.  For
   example, SR-MPLS Path 1 and Path 2 in Figure 1 are from A to P1 to N
   to Q1 to C.  Node P3 is the neighbor upstream node of N suppose that
   the shortest path from P1 to N is from P1 to P3 to N.  When node Y
   detects the failure of node N, node Y pops SID-N from the packet if
   SID-N is the top SID of the packet, and does one of the following
   steps (where steps a and b are TI-LFA in
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]):

   a.  If the current top SID in the packet is node SID of node Nx,
       sends the packet toward node Nx without going through failed N
       (i.e., {SID-Nx,...} in the packet would be {RL(Q),SID-Nx,...},
       where RL(Q) is the repair list redirecting the packet to node Q,
       whose path to SID-Nx is not affected by the failure).



Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


   b.  If the current top SID in the packet is an adjacency SID of N,
       gets remote node R of the adjacency from the adjacency SID,
       replaces the top SID in the packet with node SID of R, and sends
       the packet to node R according to the top SID in the packet
       without going through failed N (i.e., {adj(N-R),...} in the
       packet would be {RL(Q),SID-R,...}, where RL(Q) is the repair list
       redirecting the packet to node Q, whose path to SID-R is not
       affected by the failure).

   c.  If the current top SID in the packet is a BSID of N, replaces the
       BSID with the SID list associated with the BSID, and does a. or
       b.  according to the current top SID in the packet (i.e., does a.
       if it is a node SID; does b. if it is an adjacency SID of N).

4.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

5.  IANA Considerations

   No requirements for IANA.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.chen-idr-mbinding]
              Chen, H., Decraene, B., Mishra, G. S., Fan, Y., Wang, A.,
              and X. Liu, "BGP for Mirror Binding", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-chen-idr-mbinding-02, 10 May 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-idr-
              mbinding-02>.








Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


   [I-D.chen-pce-mbinding]
              Chen, H., Decraene, B., Mishra, G. S., Wang, A., Liu, X.,
              and L. Liu, "PCE for Mirror Binding", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-chen-pce-mbinding-02, 8 October
              2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-
              pce-mbinding-02>.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
              Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
              Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
              Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
              11, 30 June 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-11>.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths]
              Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu,
              "Segment Protection for SR-TE Paths", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-
              te-paths-05, 27 September 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
              segment-protection-sr-te-paths-05>.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Andrew Stone, Yao Liu,
   and Jeff Tantsura for their comments to this work.

Authors' Addresses

   Huaimo Chen
   Futurewei
   Boston, MA,
   United States of America
   Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com


   Zhibo Hu
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing
   100095
   China
   Email: huzhibo@huawei.com







Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            SRMPLS FRR Extension              October 2023


   Aijun Wang
   China Telecom
   Beiqijia Town, Changping District
   Beijing
   102209
   China
   Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn


   Yisong
   China Mobile
   510000
   China
   Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com


   Gyan S. Mishra
   Verizon Inc.
   13101 Columbia Pike
   Silver Spring,  MD 20904
   United States of America
   Phone: 301 502-1347
   Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com




























Chen, et al.              Expires 20 April 2024                [Page 13]