<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-21"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)">IPv6 Segment Routing
    Header (SRH)</title>

    <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." role="editor"
            surname="Filsfils">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Brussels</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>BE</country>
        </postal>

        <email>cfilsfil@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Darren Dukes" initials="D." role="editor"
            surname="Dukes">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Ottawa</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>CA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>ddukes@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Stefano Previdi" initials="S." surname="Previdi">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <code/>

          <country>Italy</country>
        </postal>

        <email>stefano@previdi.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="John Leddy" initials="J." surname="Leddy">
      <organization>Individual</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <region/>

          <code/>

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

        <email>john@leddy.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Satoru Matsushima" initials="S." surname="Matsushima">
      <organization>Softbank</organization>

      <address>
        <email>satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp</email>
      </address>
    </author>

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

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

    <date year="2019"/>

    <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 data plane using a new
      type of Routing Extension Header. This document describes the Segment
      Routing Extension Header and how it is used by Segment Routing capable
      nodes.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="INTRO" title="Introduction">
      <t>Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 data plane using a new
      type of Routing Extension Header (SRH). This document describes the
      Segment Routing Extension Header and how it is used by Segment Routing
      capable nodes.</t>

      <t>The Segment Routing Architecture <xref target="RFC8402"/> describes
      Segment Routing and its instantiation in two data planes MPLS and
      IPv6.</t>

      <t>The encoding of IPv6 segments in the Segment Routing Extension Header
      is defined in this document.</t>

      <t>Terminology used within this document is defined in detail in <xref
      target="RFC8402"/>. Specifically, these terms: Segment Routing, SR
      Domain, SRv6, Segment ID (SID), SRv6 SID, Active Segment, and SR
      Policy.</t>

      <section title="Requirements Language">
        <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
        "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
        "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
        14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only
        when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="SRH" title="Segment Routing Extension Header">
      <t>Routing Headers are defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>. The Segment
      Routing Header has a new Routing Type (suggested value 4) to be assigned
      by IANA.</t>

      <t>The Segment Routing Header (SRH) is defined as follows:<figure
          align="left" anchor="SRHFIG" suppress-title="true">
          <artwork>

  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    
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Next Header   |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Last Entry   |     Flags     |              Tag              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 |            Segment List[0] (128 bits IPv6 address)            |
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
                               ...
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 |            Segment List[n] (128 bits IPv6 address)            |
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                                                             //
 //         Optional Type Length Value objects (variable)       //
 //                                                             //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where:</artwork>
        </figure><list style="symbols">
          <t>Next Header: Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/> Section 4.4</t>

          <t>Hdr Ext Len: Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/> Section 4.4</t>

          <t>Routing Type: TBD, to be assigned by IANA (suggested value:
          4).</t>

          <t>Segments Left: Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/> Section
          4.4</t>

          <t>Last Entry: contains the index (zero based), in the Segment List,
          of the last element of the Segment List.</t>

          <t>Flags: 8 bits of flags. <xref target="SRHFLAGSREG"/> creates an
          IANA registry for new flags to be defined. The following flags are
          defined:<figure align="left" anchor="SRHFLAGS" suppress-title="true">
              <artwork align="left">
                       
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |U U U U U U U U|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 </artwork>
            </figure><list style="hanging">
              <t>U: Unused and for future use. MUST be 0 on transmission and
              ignored on receipt.</t>
            </list></t>

          <t>Tag: tag a packet as part of a class or group of packets, e.g.,
          packets sharing the same set of properties. When tag is not used at
          source it MUST be set to zero on transmission. When tag is not used
          during SRH Processing it SHOULD be ignored. Tag is not used when
          processing the SID defined in <xref target="pktENDSID"/>. It may be
          used when processing other SIDs which are not defined in this
          document. The allocation and use of tag is outside the scope of this
          document.</t>

          <t>Segment List[n]: 128 bit IPv6 addresses representing the nth
          segment in the Segment List. The Segment List is encoded starting
          from the last segment of the SR Policy. I.e., the first element of
          the segment list (Segment List [0]) contains the last segment of the
          SR Policy, the second element contains the penultimate segment of
          the SR Policy and so on.</t>

          <t>Type Length Value (TLV) are described in <xref
          target="TLVS"/>.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>In the SRH, the Next Header, Hdr Ext Len, and Routing Type fields are
      defined in Section 4.4 of <xref target="RFC8200"/> as not mutable. The
      Segments Left field is defined as mutable in Section 4.4 of <xref
      target="RFC8200"/>.</t>

      <t>The mutability of the TLV value is defined by the most significant
      bit in the type, as specified in <xref target="TLVS"/>.</t>

      <t><xref target="ENDSID"/> defines the mutability of the remaining
      fields in the SRH (Flags, Tag, Segment List) in the context of the SID
      defined in this document.</t>

      <t>New SIDs defined in the future MUST specify the mutability properties
      of the Flags, Tag, and Segment List and indicate how the HMAC TLV (<xref
      target="HMACTLV"/>) verification works. Note, that in effect these
      fields are mutable.</t>

      <t>Consistent with the source routing model, the source of the SRH
      always knows how to set the segment list, Flags, Tag and TLVs of the SRH
      for use within the SR Domain. How it achieves this is outside the scope
      of this document, but may be based on topology, available SIDs and their
      mutability properties, the SRH mutability requirements of the
      destination, or any other information.</t>

      <section anchor="TLVS" title="SRH TLVs">
        <t>This section defines TLVs of the Segment Routing Header.</t>

        <t>A TLV provides meta-data for segment processing. The only TLVs
        defined in this document are the HMAC (<xref target="HMACTLV"/>) and
        PAD (<xref target="PADDINGTLV"/>) TLVs. While processing the SID
        defined in <xref target="pktENDSID"/>, all TLVs are ignored unless
        local configuration indicates otherwise (<xref target="TLVPROCESS"/>).
        Thus, TLV and HMAC support is optional for any implementation, however
        an implementation adding or parsing TLVs MUST support PAD TLVs. Other
        documents may define additional TLVs and processing rules for
        them.</t>

        <t>TLVs are present when the Hdr Ext Len exceeds the Last Entry
        element in the Segment List.</t>

        <t>While processing TLVs at a segment endpoint, TLVs MUST be fully
        contained within the SRH as determined by the Hdr Ext Len. Detection
        of TLVs exceeding the boundary of the SRH Hdr Ext Len results in an
        ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to the Source Address,
        pointing to the Hdr Ext Len field of the SRH, and the packet being
        discarded.</t>

        <t>An implementation MAY limit the number and/or length of TLVs it
        processes based on local configuration. It MAY:<list style="symbols">
            <t>Limit the number of consecutive Pad1 (<xref target="PAD1"/>)
            options to 1, if padding of more than one byte is required then
            PadN (<xref target="PADN"/>) should be used.</t>

            <t>Limit the length in PadN to 5.</t>

            <t>Limit the maximum number of non-Pad TLVs to be processed.</t>

            <t>Limit the maximum length of all TLVs to be processed.</t>
          </list> The implementation MAY stop processing additional TLVs in
        the SRH when these configured limits are exceeded.</t>

        <figure>
          <artwork>
 0                   1 
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-----------------------
|     Type      |    Length     | Variable length data  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-----------------------
</artwork>
        </figure>

        <t>Type: An 8 bit value. Unrecognized Types MUST be ignored on
        receipt.</t>

        <t>Length: The length of the Variable length data.</t>

        <t>Variable length data: Length bytes of data that is specific to the
        Type.</t>

        <t>Type Length Value (TLV) contain OPTIONAL information that may be
        used by the node identified in the Destination Address (DA) of the
        packet.</t>

        <t>Each TLV has its own length, format and semantic. The code-point
        allocated (by IANA) to each TLV Type defines both the format and the
        semantic of the information carried in the TLV. Multiple TLVs may be
        encoded in the same SRH.</t>

        <t>The highest-order bit of the TLV type specifies whether or not the
        TLV data of that type can change en route to the packet's final
        destination: <list>
            <t>0: TLV data does not change en route</t>

            <t>1: TLV data does change en route</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>All TLVs specify their alignment requirements using an xn+y format.
        The xn+y format is defined as per <xref target="RFC8200"/>. The SR
        Source nodes use the xn+y alignment requirements of TLVs and padding
        TLVs when constructing an SRH.</t>

        <t>The "Length" field of the TLV is used to skip the TLV while
        inspecting the SRH in case the node doesn't support or recognize the
        Type. The "Length" defines the TLV length in octets, not including the
        "Type" and "Length" fields.</t>

        <t>The following TLVs are defined in this document:<list>
            <t>Padding TLVs</t>

            <t>HMAC TLV</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>Additional TLVs may be defined in the future.</t>

        <section anchor="PADDINGTLV" title="Padding TLVs">
          <t>There are two types of padding TLVs, pad1 and padN, the following
          applies to both:<list>
              <t>Padding TLVs are used to pad the SRH to a multiple of 8
              octets.</t>

              <t>Padding TLVs are used for alignment.</t>

              <t>Padding TLVs are ignored by a node processing the SRH
              TLV.</t>

              <t>Multiple Padding TLVs MAY be used in one SRH</t>
            </list></t>

          <section anchor="PAD1" title="PAD1">
            <t>Alignment requirement: none</t>

            <figure>
              <artwork>
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
  |     Type      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</artwork>
            </figure>

            <t><list>
                <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA (Suggested value 0)</t>
              </list></t>

            <t>A single Pad1 TLV MUST be used when a single byte of padding is
            required. If more than one byte of padding is required a Pad1 TLV
            MUST NOT be used, the PadN TLV MUST be used.</t>
          </section>

          <section anchor="PADN" title="PADN">
            <t>Alignment requirement: none</t>

            <figure>
              <artwork>
 0                   1                   2                   3   
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1     
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
|     Type      |    Length     |      Padding (variable)       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
//                    Padding (variable)                       //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</artwork>
            </figure>

            <t><list>
                <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 4).</t>

                <t>Length: 0 to 5</t>

                <t>Padding: Length octets of padding. Padding bits have no
                semantics. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored
                on receipt.</t>
              </list></t>

            <t>The PadN TLV MUST be used when more than one byte of padding is
            required.</t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section anchor="HMACTLV" title="HMAC TLV">
          <t>Alignment requirement: 8n</t>

          <t>The keyed Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) TLV is
          OPTIONAL and has the following format:<figure>
              <artwork> 0                   1                   2                   3   
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1     
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
|      Type     |     Length    |          RESERVED             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      HMAC Key ID (4 octets)                   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                              //
|                      HMAC (32 octets)                        //
|                                                              //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

where:</artwork>
            </figure> <list style="symbols">
              <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 5).</t>

              <t>Length: 38.</t>

              <t>RESERVED: 2 octets. MUST be 0 on transmission and ignored on
              receipt.</t>

              <t>HMAC Key ID: A 4 octet opaque number which uniquely
              identifies the pre-shared key and algorithm used to generate the
              HMAC. If 0, the HMAC is not included.</t>

              <t>HMAC: 32 octets of keyed HMAC, not present if Key ID is
              0.</t>
            </list></t>

          <t>The HMAC TLV is used to verify the source of a packet is
          permitted to use the current segment in the destination address of
          the packet, and ensure the segment list is not modified in
          transit.</t>

          <section title="HMAC Generation and Verification">
            <t>Local configuration determines when to check for an HMAC and
            potentially provides an alternate composition of Text, and a
            requirement on where the HMAC TLV must appear (e.g. first TLV),
            and whether or not to verify the destination address is equal to
            the current segment. This local configuration is outside the scope
            of this document. It may be based on the active segment at an SR
            Segment endpoint node, the result of an ACL that considers
            incoming interface, HMAC Key ID, or other packet fields.</t>

            <t>An implementation that supports the generation and verification
            of the HMAC SHOULD support the following default behavior as
            defined in the remainder of this section.</t>

            <t>The HMAC verification begins by checking the current segment is
            equal to the destination address of the IPv6 header, i.e.
            destination address is equal to Segment List [Segments Left] and
            Segments Left is less than or equal to Last Segment+1.</t>

            <t>The HMAC field is the output of the HMAC computation as defined
            in <xref target="RFC2104"/>, using:<list style="symbols">
                <t>key: the pre-shared key identified by HMAC Key ID</t>

                <t>HMAC algorithm: identified by the HMAC Key ID</t>

                <t>Text: a concatenation of the following fields from the IPv6
                header and the SRH, as it would be received at the node
                verifying the HMAC:<list style="symbols">
                    <t>IPv6 header: source address (16 octets)</t>

                    <t>SRH: Last Entry (1 octet)</t>

                    <t>SRH: Flags (1 octet)</t>

                    <t>SRH: HMAC Key-id (4 octets)</t>

                    <t>SRH: all addresses in the Segment List (variable
                    octets)</t>
                  </list></t>
              </list></t>

            <t>The HMAC digest is truncated to 32 octets and placed in the
            HMAC field of the HMAC TLV.</t>

            <t>For HMAC algorithms producing digests less than 32 octets, the
            digest is placed in the lowest order octets of the HMAC field.
            Remaining octets MUST be set to zero.</t>

            <t>If HMAC verification is successful, the packet is forwarded to
            the next segment.</t>

            <t>If HMAC verification fails, an ICMP error message (parameter
            problem, error code 0, pointing to the HMAC TLV) SHOULD be
            generated (but rate limited) and SHOULD be logged.</t>
          </section>

          <section title="HMAC Pre-Shared Key Algorithm">
            <t>The HMAC Key ID field allows for the simultaneous existence of
            several hash algorithms (SHA-256, SHA3-256 ... or future ones) as
            well as pre-shared keys.</t>

            <t>The HMAC Key ID field is opaque, i.e., it has neither syntax
            nor semantic except as an identifier of the right combination of
            pre-shared key and hash algorithm, and except that a value of 0
            means that there is no HMAC field.</t>

            <t>At the HMAC TLV verification node the Key ID uniquely
            identifies the pre-shared key and HMAC algorithm.</t>

            <t>At the HMAC TLV generating node the Key ID and destination
            address uniquely identify the pre-shared key and HMAC algorithm.
            Utilizing the destination address with the Key ID allows for
            overlapping key IDs amongst different HMAC verification nodes. The
            Text for the HMAC computation is set to the IPv6 header fields and
            SRH fields as they would appear at the verification node, not
            necessarily the same as the source node sending a packet with the
            HMAC TLV.</t>

            <t>Pre-shared key roll-over is supported by having two key IDs in
            use while the HMAC TLV generating node and verifying node converge
            to a new key.</t>

            <t>SRH implementations can support multiple hash functions but
            MUST implement SHA-2 <xref target="FIPS180-4"/> in its SHA-256
            variant.</t>

            <t>The selection of pre-shared key and algorithm, and their
            distribution is outside the scope of this document, some options
            may include: <list style="symbols">
                <t>in the configuration of the HMAC generating or verifying
                nodes, either by static configuration or any SDN oriented
                approach</t>

                <t>dynamically using a trusted key distribution protocol such
                as <xref target="RFC6407"/></t>
              </list></t>
          </section>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="SRNODES" title="SR Nodes">
      <t>There are different types of nodes that may be involved in segment
      routing networks: source SR nodes originate packets with a segment in
      the destination address of the IPv6 header, transit nodes that forward
      packets destined to a remote segment, and SR segment endpoint nodes that
      process a local segment in the destination address of an IPv6
      header.</t>

      <section anchor="SOURCE" title="Source SR Node">
        <t>A Source SR Node is any node that originates an IPv6 packet with a
        segment (i.e. SRv6 SID) in the destination address of the IPv6 header.
        The packet leaving the source SR Node may or may not contain an SRH.
        This includes either: <list style="hanging">
            <t>A host originating an IPv6 packet.</t>

            <t>An SR domain ingress router encapsulating a received packet in
            an outer IPv6 header, followed by an optional SRH.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>The mechanism through which a segment in the destination address of
        the IPv6 header and the Segment List in the SRH, is derived is outside
        the scope of this document.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="TRANSIT" title="Transit Node">
        <t>A transit node is any node forwarding an IPv6 packet where the
        destination address of that packet is not locally configured as a
        segment nor a local interface. A transit node is not required to be
        capable of processing a segment nor SRH.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="SR Segment Endpoint Node">
        <t>A SR segment endpoint node is any node receiving an IPv6 packet
        where the destination address of that packet is locally configured as
        a segment or local interface.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="PacketProcessing" title="Packet Processing">
      <t>This section describes SRv6 packet processing at the SR source,
      Transit and SR segment endpoint nodes.</t>

      <section anchor="pktSourceNode" title="Source SR Node">
        <t>A Source node steers a packet into an SR Policy. If the SR Policy
        results in a segment list containing a single segment, and there is no
        need to add information to SRH flag or TLV, the DA is set to the
        single segment list entry and the SRH MAY be omitted.</t>

        <t>When needed, the SRH is created as follows:<list style="hanging">
            <t>Next Header and Hdr Ext Len fields are set as specified in
            <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>

            <t>Routing Type field is set as TBD (to be allocated by IANA,
            suggested value 4).</t>

            <t>The DA of the packet is set with the value of the first
            segment.</t>

            <t>The first element of the SRH Segment List is the ultimate
            segment. The second element is the penultimate segment and so
            on.</t>

            <t>The Segments Left field is set to n-1 where n is the number of
            elements in the SR Policy.</t>

            <t>The Last Entry field is set to n-1 where n is the number of
            elements in the SR Policy.</t>

            <t>HMAC TLV may be set according to <xref target="Security"/>.</t>

            <t>The packet is forwarded toward the packet's Destination Address
            (the first segment).</t>
          </list></t>

        <section title="Reduced SRH">
          <t>When a source does not require the entire SID list to be
          preserved in the SRH, a reduced SRH may be used.</t>

          <t>A reduced SRH does not contain the first segment of the related
          SR Policy (the first segment is the one already in the DA of the
          IPv6 header), and the Last Entry field is set to n-2 where n is the
          number of elements in the SR Policy.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Transit Node">
        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC8200"/>, the only node allowed to
        inspect the Routing Extension Header (and therefore the SRH), is the
        node corresponding to the DA of the packet. Any other transit node
        MUST NOT inspect the underneath routing header and MUST forward the
        packet toward the DA according to its IPv6 routing table.</t>

        <t>When a SID is in the destination address of an IPv6 header of a
        packet, it's routed through an IPv6 network as an IPv6 address. SIDs,
        or the prefix(es) covering SIDs, and their reachability may be
        distributed by means outside the scope of this document. For example,
        <xref target="RFC5308"/> or <xref target="RFC5340"/> may be used to
        advertise a prefix covering the SIDs on a node.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="ENDSID" title="SR Segment Endpoint Node">
        <t>Without constraining the details of an implementation, the SR
        segment endpoint node creates Forwarding Information Base (FIB)
        entries for its local SIDs.</t>

        <t>When an SRv6-capable node receives an IPv6 packet, it performs a
        longest-prefix-match lookup on the packets destination address. This
        lookup can return any of the following:<figure align="left">
            <artwork>
    A FIB entry that represents a locally instantiated SRv6 SID
    A FIB entry that represents a local interface, not locally
                                  instantiated as an SRv6 SID
    A FIB entry that represents a non-local route
    No Match</artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <section anchor="pktENDSID"
                 title="FIB Entry Is Locally Instantiated SRv6 SID">
          <t>This document, and section, defines a single SRv6 SID. Future
          documents may define additional SRv6 SIDs. In which case, the entire
          content of this section will be defined in that document.</t>

          <t>If the FIB entry represents a locally instantiated SRv6 SID,
          process the next header chain of the IPv6 header as defined in
          section 4 of <xref target="RFC8200"/>. <xref target="SRHPROC"/>
          describes how to process an SRH, <xref target="UPPERHEADER"/>
          describes how to process an upper layer header or no next
          header.</t>

          <t>Processing this SID modifies the Segments Left and, if configured
          to process TLVs, it may modify the "variable length data" of TLV
          types that change en route. Therefore Segments Left is mutable and
          TLVs that change en route are mutable. The remainder of the SRH
          (Flags, Tag, Segment List, and TLVs that do not change en route) are
          immutable while processing this SID.</t>

          <section anchor="SRHPROC" title="SRH Processing">
            <t><figure align="left">
                <artwork>
S01. When an SRH is processed {
S02.   If Segments Left is equal to zero {
S03.     Proceed to process the next header in the packet, 
         whose type is identified by the Next Header field in
         the Routing header.
S04.   }
S05.   Else {
S06.     If local configuration requires TLV processing {
S07.       Perform TLV processing (see TLV Processing)
S08.     }
S09.     max_last_entry  =  ( Hdr Ext Len /  2 ) - 1
S10.     If  ((Last Entry &gt; max_last_entry) or 
S11.          (Segments Left is greater than (Last Entry+1)) {
S12.       Send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to
           the Source Address, pointing to the Segments Left 
           field, and discard the packet.
S13.     }
S14.     Else {
S15.       Decrement Segments Left by 1.
S16.       Copy Segment List[Segments Left] from the SRH to the
           destination address of the IPv6 header.
S17.       If the IPv6 Hop Limit is less than or equal to 1 {
S18.         Send an ICMP Time Exceeded -- Hop Limit Exceeded in
             Transit message to the Source Address and discard
             the packet.
S19.       }
S20.       Else {
S21.         Decrement the Hop Limit by 1
S22.         Resubmit the packet to the IPv6 module for transmission
             to the new destination.
S23.       }
S24.     }
S25.   }
S26. }
</artwork>
              </figure></t>

            <section anchor="TLVPROCESS" title="TLV Processing">
              <t>Local configuration determines how TLVs are to be processed
              when the Active Segment is a local SID defined in this document.
              The definition of local configuration is outside the scope of
              this document.</t>

              <t>For illustration purpose only, two example local
              configurations that may be associated with a SID are provided
              below.</t>

              <t><figure align="left">
                  <artwork>
Example 1:
For any packet received from interface I2
  Skip TLV processing

Example 2:
For any packet received from interface I1
  If first TLV is HMAC {
    Process the HMAC TLV
  }
  Else {
    Discard the packet
  }</artwork>
                </figure></t>
            </section>
          </section>

          <section anchor="UPPERHEADER"
                   title="Upper-layer Header or No Next Header">
            <t>When processing the Upper-layer header of a packet matching a
            FIB entry locally instantiated as an SRv6 SID defined in this
            document.</t>

            <t><figure>
                <artwork>
IF (Upper-layer Header is IPv4 or IPv6) and 
    local configuration permits {
  Perform IPv6 decapsulation 
  Resubmit the decapsulated packet to the IPv4 or IPv6 module
}
ELSE {   
  Send an ICMP parameter problem message to the Source Address and
  discard the packet.  Error code (TBD by IANA) "SR Upper-layer 
  Header Error", pointer set to the offset of the upper-layer 
  header.
}
</artwork>
              </figure></t>

            <t>A unique error code allows an SR Source node to recognize an
            error in SID processing at an endpoint.</t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section title="FIB Entry is a Local Interface">
          <t>If the FIB entry represents a local interface, not locally
          instantiated as an SRv6 SID, the SRH is processed as follows:<list>
              <t>If Segments Left is zero, the node must ignore the Routing
              header and proceed to process the next header in the packet,
              whose type is identified by the Next Header field in the Routing
              Header.</t>

              <t>If Segments Left is non-zero, the node must discard the
              packet and send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to
              the packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized
              Routing Type.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="FIB Entry Is A Non-Local Route">
          <t>Processing is not changed by this document.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="FIB Entry Is A No Match">
          <t>Processing is not changed by this document.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="DEP" title="Intra SR Domain Deployment Model">
      <t>The use of the SIDs exclusively within the SR Domain and solely for
      packets of the SR Domain is an important deployment model.</t>

      <t>This enables the SR Domain to act as a single routing system.</t>

      <t>This section covers:<list style="symbols">
          <t>securing the SR Domain from external attempt to use its SIDs</t>

          <t>SR Domain as a single system with delegation between
          components</t>

          <t>handling packets of the SR Domain</t>
        </list></t>

      <section anchor="SECSRDOMAIN" title="Securing the SR Domain">
        <t>Nodes outside the SR Domain are not trusted: they cannot directly
        use the SID's of the domain. This is enforced by two levels of access
        control lists: <list style="numbers">
            <t>Any packet entering the SR Domain and destined to a SID within
            the SR Domain is dropped. This may be realized with the following
            logic, other methods with equivalent outcome are considered
            compliant: <list style="symbols">
                <t>allocate all the SID's from a block S/s</t>

                <t>configure each external interface of each edge node of the
                domain with an inbound infrastructure access list (IACL) which
                drops any incoming packet with a destination address in
                S/s</t>

                <t>Failure to implement this method of ingress filtering
                exposes the SR Domain to source routing attacks as described
                and referenced in <xref target="RFC5095"/></t>
              </list></t>

            <t>The distributed protection in #1 is complemented with per node
            protection, dropping packets to SIDs from source addresses outside
            the SR Domain. This may be realized with the following logic,
            other methods with equivalent outcome are considered compliant:
            <list style="symbols">
                <t>assign all interface addresses from prefix A/a</t>

                <t>at node k, all SIDs local to k are assigned from prefix
                Sk/sk</t>

                <t>configure each internal interface of each SR node k in the
                SR Domain with an inbound IACL which drops any incoming packet
                with a destination address in Sk/sk if the source address is
                not in A/a.</t>
              </list></t>
          </list></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="SINGLESYS"
               title="SR Domain as a single system with delegation among components">
        <t>All intra SR Domain packets are of the SR Domain. The IPv6 header
        is originated by a node of the SR Domain, and is destined to a node of
        the SR Domain.</t>

        <t>All inter domain packets are encapsulated for the part of the
        packet journey that is within the SR Domain. The outer IPv6 header is
        originated by a node of the SR Domain, and is destined to a node of
        the SR Domain.</t>

        <t>As a consequence, any packet within the SR Domain is of the SR
        Domain.</t>

        <t>The SR Domain is a system in which the operator may want to
        distribute or delegate different operations of the outer most header
        to different nodes within the system.</t>

        <t>An operator of an SR domain may choose to delegate SRH addition to
        a host node within the SR domain, and validation of the contents of
        any SRH to a more trusted router or switch attached to the host.
        Consider a top of rack switch (T) connected to host (H) via interface
        (I). H receives an SRH (SRH1) with a computed HMAC via some SDN method
        outside the scope of this document. H classifies traffic it sources
        and adds SRH1 to traffic requiring a specific SLA. T is configured
        with an IACL on I requiring verification of the SRH for any packet
        destined to the SID block of the SR Domain (S/s). T checks and
        verifies that SRH1 is valid, contains an HMAC TLV and verifies the
        HMAC.</t>

        <t>An operator of the SR Domain may choose to have all segments in the
        SR Domain verify the HMAC. This mechanism would verify that the SRH
        segment list is not modified while traversing the SR Domain.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="MTU" title="MTU Considerations">
        <t>Within the SR Domain, well known mitigation techniques are
        RECOMMENDED, such as deploying a greater MTU value within the SR
        Domain than at the ingress edges.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="ICMP" title="ICMP Error Processing">
        <t>ICMP error packets generated within the SR Domain are sent to
        source nodes within the SR Domain. The invoking packet in the ICMP
        error message may contain an SRH. Since the destination address of a
        packet with an SRH changes as each segment is processed, it may not be
        the destination used by the socket or application that generated the
        invoking packet.</t>

        <t>For the source of an invoking packet to process the ICMP error
        message, the correct destination address must be determined. The
        following logic is used to determine the destination address for use
        by protocol error handlers.<list style="symbols">
            <t>Walk all extension headers of the invoking IPv6 packet to the
            routing extension header preceding the upper layer header.<list
                style="symbols">
                <t>If routing header is type 4 (SRH)<list style="symbols">
                    <t>Use the 0th segment in the segment list as the
                    destination address of the invoking packet.</t>
                  </list></t>
              </list></t>
          </list></t>

        <t>ICMP errors are then processed by upper layer transports as defined
        in <xref target="RFC4443"/>.</t>

        <t>For IP packets encapsulated in an outer IPv6 header, ICMP error
        handling is as defined in <xref target="RFC2473"/>.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="LBECMP" title="Load Balancing and ECMP">
        <t>For any inter domain packet, the SR Source node MUST impose a flow
        label computed based on the inner packet. The computation of the flow
        label is as recommended in <xref target="RFC6438"/> for the sending
        Tunnel End Point.</t>

        <t>For any intra domain packet, the SR Source node SHOULD impose a
        flow label computed as described in <xref target="RFC6437"/> to assist
        ECMP load balancing at transit nodes incapable of computing a 5-tuple
        beyond the SRH.</t>

        <t>At any transit node within an SR domain, the flow label MUST be
        used as defined in <xref target="RFC6438"/> to calculate the ECMP hash
        toward the destination address. If flow label is not used, the transit
        node would likely hash all packets between a pair of SR Edge nodes to
        the same link.</t>

        <t>At an SR segment endpoint node, the flow label MUST be used as
        defined in <xref target="RFC6438"/> to calculate any ECMP hash used to
        forward the processed packet to the next segment.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="other" title="Other Deployments">
        <t>Other deployment models and their implications on security, MTU,
        HMAC, ICMP error processing and interaction with other extension
        headers are outside the scope of this document.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ILL" title="Illustrations">
      <t>This section provides illustrations of SRv6 packet processing at SR
      source, transit and SR segment endpoint nodes.</t>

      <section title="Abstract Representation of an SRH">
        <t>For a node k, its IPv6 address is represented as Ak, its SRv6 SID
        is represented as Sk.</t>

        <t>IPv6 headers are represented as the tuple of (source, destination).
        For example, a packet with source address A1 and destination address
        A2 is represented as (A1,A2). The payload of the packet is
        omitted.</t>

        <t>An SR Policy is a list of segments. A list of segments is
        represented as &lt;S1,S2,S3&gt; where S1 is the first SID to visit, S2
        is the second SID to visit and S3 is the last SID to visit.</t>

        <t>(SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents an IPv6 packet with:<list
            style="symbols">
            <t>Source Address is SA, Destination Addresses is DA, and
            next-header is SRH.</t>

            <t>SRH with SID list &lt;S1, S2, S3&gt; with SegmentsLeft =
            SL.</t>

            <t>Note the difference between the &lt;&gt; and () symbols.
            &lt;S1, S2, S3&gt; represents a SID list where the leftmost
            segment is the first segment. Whereas, (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents
            the same SID list but encoded in the SRH Segment List format where
            the leftmost segment is the last segment. When referring to an SR
            policy in a high-level use-case, it is simpler to use the &lt;S1,
            S2, S3&gt; notation. When referring to an illustration of detailed
            behavior, the (S3, S2, S1; SL) notation is more convenient.</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>At its SR Policy headend, the Segment List &lt;S1,S2,S3&gt; results
        in SRH (S3,S2,S1; SL=2) represented fully as: <figure align="left">
            <artwork>
    Segments Left=2
    Last Entry=2
    Flags=0
    Tag=0
    Segment List[0]=S3
    Segment List[1]=S2
    Segment List[2]=S1</artwork>
          </figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Example Topology">
        <t>The following topology is used in examples below: <figure
            align="center" anchor="TOPO1">
            <artwork>
        + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +

        *         [8]                [9]          *
                   |                  |
        *          |                  |           *
[1]----[3]--------[5]----------------[6]---------[4]---[2]
        *          |                  |           *
                   |                  |
        *          |                  |           *
                   +--------[7]-------+
        *                                         *

        + * * * * * * *  SR Domain  * * * * * * * +</artwork>
          </figure><list style="symbols">
            <t>3 and 4 are SR Domain edge routers</t>

            <t>5, 6, and 7 are all SR Domain routers</t>

            <t>8 and 9 are hosts within the SR Domain</t>

            <t>1 and 2 are hosts outside the SR Domain</t>

            <t>The SR domain is secured as per <xref target="SECSRDOMAIN"/>
            and no external packet can enter the domain with a destination
            address equal to a segment of the domain.</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Source SR Node">
        <section title="Intra SR Domain Packet">
          <t>When host 8 sends a packet to host 9 via an SR Policy
          &lt;S7,A9&gt; the packet is</t>

          <t>P1: (A8,S7)(A9,S7; SL=1)</t>

          <section title="Reduced Variant">
            <t>When host 8 sends a packet to host 9 via an SR Policy
            &lt;S7,A9&gt; and it wants to use a reduced SRH, the packet is</t>

            <t>P2: (A8,S7)(A9; SL=1)</t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section title="Inter SR Domain Packet - Transit">
          <t>When host 1 sends a packet to host 2, the packet is</t>

          <t>P3: (A1,A2)</t>

          <t>The SR Domain ingress router 3 receives P3 and steers it to SR
          Domain egress router 4 via an SR Policy &lt;S7, S4&gt;. Router 3
          encapsulates the received packet P3 in an outer header with an SRH.
          The packet is</t>

          <t>P4: (A3, S7)(S4, S7; SL=1)(A1, A2)</t>

          <t>If the SR Policy contains only one segment (the egress router 4),
          the ingress Router 3 encapsulates P3 into an outer header (A3, S4).
          The packet is</t>

          <t>P5: (A3, S4)(A1, A2)</t>

          <section title="Reduced Variant">
            <t>The SR Domain ingress router 3 receives P3 and steers it to SR
            Domain egress router 4 via an SR Policy &lt;S7, S4&gt;. If router
            3 wants to use a reduced SRH, Router 3 encapsulates the received
            packet P3 in an outer header with a reduced SRH. The packet is</t>

            <t>P6: (A3, S7)(S4; SL=1)(A1, A2)</t>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section title="Inter SR Domain Packet - Internal to External">
          <t>When host 8 sends a packet to host 1, the packet is encapsulated
          for the portion of its journey within the SR Domain. From 8 to 3 the
          packet is</t>

          <t>P7: (A8,S3)(A8,A1)</t>

          <t>In the opposite direction, the packet generated from 1 to 8
          is</t>

          <t>P8: (A1,A8)</t>

          <t>At node 3 P8 is encapsulated for the portion of its journey
          within the SR domain, with the outer header destined to segment S8.
          Resulting in</t>

          <t>P9: (A3,S8)(A1,A8)</t>

          <t>At node 8 the outer IPv6 header is removed by S8 processing, then
          processed again when received by A8.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="Transit Node">
        <t>Nodes 5 acts as transit nodes for packet P1, and sends packet</t>

        <t>P1: (A8,S7)(A9,S7;SL=1)</t>

        <t>on the interface toward node 7.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="SR Segment Endpoint Node">
        <t>Node 7 receives packet P1 and, using the logic in <xref
        target="pktENDSID"/>, sends packet</t>

        <t>P7: (A8,A9)(A9,S7; SL=0)</t>

        <t>on the interface toward router 6.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Delegation of Function with HMAC Verification">
        <t>This section describes how a function may be delegated within the
        SR Domain to non SR source nodes. In the following sections consider a
        host 8 connected to a top of rack 5.</t>

        <section title="SID List Verification">
          <t>An operator may prefer to add the SRH at source 8, while 5
          verifies the SID list is valid.</t>

          <t>For illustration purpose, an SDN controller provides 8 an SRH
          terminating at node 9, with segment list &lt;S5,S7,S6,A9&gt;, and
          HMAC TLV computed for the SRH. The HMAC key is shared with 5, node 8
          does not know the key. Node 5 is configured with an IACL applied to
          the interface connected to 8, requiring HMAC verification for any
          packet destined to S/s.</t>

          <t>Node 8 originates packets with the received SRH with HMAC
          TLV.</t>

          <t>P15:(A8,S5)(A9,S6,S7,S5;SL=3;HMAC)</t>

          <t>Node 5 receives and verifies the HMAC for the SRH, then forwards
          the packet to the next segment</t>

          <t>P16:(A8,S7)(A9,S6,S7,S5;SL=2;HMAC)</t>

          <t>Node 6 receives</t>

          <t>P17:(A8,S6)(A9,S6,S7,S5;SL=1;HMAC)</t>

          <t>Node 9 receives</t>

          <t>P18:(A8,A9)(A9,S6,S7,S5;SL=0;HMAC)</t>

          <t>This use of an HMAC is particularly valuable within an enterprise
          based SR Domain <xref target="SRN"/>.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>This section reviews security considerations related to the SRH,
      given the SRH processing and deployment models discussed in this
      document.</t>

      <t>As described in <xref target="DEP"/>, it is necessary to filter
      packets ingress to the SR Domain, destined to SIDs within the SR Domain
      (i.e., bearing a SID in the destination address). This ingress filtering
      is via an IACL at SR Domain ingress border nodes. Additional protection
      is applied via an IACL at each SR Segment Endpoint node, filtering
      packets not from within the SR Domain, destined to SIDs in the SR
      Domain. ACLs are easily supported for small numbers of prefixes, making
      summarization important, and when the prefixes requiring filtering is
      kept to a seldom changing set.</t>

      <t>Additionally, ingress filtering of IPv6 source addresses as
      recommended in BCP38 SHOULD be used.</t>

      <section title="Source Routing Attacks">
        <t><xref target="RFC5095"/> deprecates the Type 0 Routing header due
        to a number of significant attacks that are referenced in that
        document. Such attacks include bypassing filtering devices, reaching
        otherwise unreachable Internet systems, network topology discovery,
        bandwidth exhaustion, and defeating anycast.</t>

        <t>Because this document specifies that the SRH is for use within an
        SR domain protected by ingress filtering via IACLs; such attacks
        cannot be mounted from outside an SR Domain. As specified in this
        document, SR Domain ingress edge nodes drop packets entering the SR
        Domain destined to segments within the SR Domain.</t>

        <t>Additionally, this document specifies the use of IACL on SR Segment
        Endpoint nodes within the SR Domain to limit the source addresses
        permitted to send packets to a SID in the SR Domain.</t>

        <t>Such attacks may, however, be mounted from within the SR Domain,
        from nodes permitted to source traffic to SIDs in the domain. As such,
        these attacks and other known attacks on an IP network (e.g. DOS/DDOS,
        topology discovery, man-in-the-middle, traffic
        interception/siphoning), can occur from compromised nodes within an SR
        Domain.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Service Theft">
        <t>Service theft is defined as the use of a service offered by the SR
        Domain by a node not authorized to use the service.</t>

        <t>Service theft is not a concern within the SR Domain as all SR
        Source nodes and SR segment endpoint nodes within the domain are able
        to utilize the services of the Domain. If a node outside the SR Domain
        learns of segments or a topological service within the SR domain, IACL
        filtering denies access to those segments.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Topology Disclosure">
        <t>The SRH is unencrypted and may contain SIDs of some intermediate
        SR-nodes in the path towards the destination within the SR Domain. If
        packets can be snooped within the SR Domain, the SRH may reveal
        topology, traffic flows, and service usage.</t>

        <t>This is applicable within an SR Domain but the disclosure is less
        relevant as an attacker has other means of learning topology, flows,
        and service usage.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="ICMP Generation">
        <t>The generation of ICMPv6 error messages may be used to attempt
        denial-of-service attacks by sending an error-causing destination
        address or SRH in back-to-back packets. An implementation that
        correctly follows Section 2.4 of <xref target="RFC4443"/> would be
        protected by the ICMPv6 rate-limiting mechanism.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Applicability of AH">
        <t>The SR Domain is a trusted domain, as defined in <xref
        target="RFC8402"/> Section 2 and Section 8.2. The SR Source is trusted
        to add an SRH (optionally verified via the HMAC TLV in this document),
        and segments advertised within the domain are trusted to be accurate
        and advertised by trusted sources via a secure control plane. As such
        the SR Domain does not rely on the Authentication Header (AH) as
        defined in <xref target="RFC4302"/> to secure the SRH.</t>

        <t>The use of SRH with AH by an SR source node, and processing at a SR
        segment endpoint node, is not defined in this document. Future
        documents may define use of SRH with AH and its processing.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document makes the following registrations in the Internet
      Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters "Routing Type" registry maintained
      by IANA:<figure align="center">
          <artwork align="left">
Suggested            Description             Reference 
  Value
----------------------------------------------------------
   4         Segment Routing Header (SRH)    This document</artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>This document makes the following registrations in "Type 4 -
      Parameter Problem" message of the "Internet Control Message Protocol
      version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" registry maintained by IANA:<figure
          align="center">
          <artwork align="left">
CODE        NAME/DESCRIPTION
----------------------------------------------------------              
TBD IANA    SR Upper-layer Header Error</artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
      Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the SRH, in
      accordance with BCP 26, <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>

      <t>The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
      26: "namespace", "assigned value", "registration".</t>

      <t>The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
      26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
      "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action".</t>

      <t>For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be
      consulted, the responsible IESG area director should appoint the
      Designated Expert. The intention is that any allocation will be
      accompanied by a published RFC. In order to allow for the allocation of
      values prior to the RFC being approved for publication, the Designated
      Expert can approve allocations once it seems clear that an RFC will be
      published. The Designated expert will post a request to the 6man WG
      mailing list (or a successor designated by the Area Director) for
      comment and review, including an Internet-Draft. Before a period of 30
      days has passed, the Designated Expert will either approve or deny the
      registration request and publish a notice of the decision to the 6man WG
      mailing list or its successor, as well as informing IANA. A denial
      notice must be justified by an explanation, and in the cases where it is
      possible, concrete suggestions on how the request can be modified so as
      to become acceptable should be provided.</t>

      <section anchor="SRHFLAGSREG"
               title="Segment Routing Header Flags Register">
        <t>This document requests the creation of a new IANA managed registry
        to identify SRH Flags Bits. The registration procedure is "Expert
        Review" as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"/>. Suggested registry
        name is "Segment Routing Header Flags". Flags is 8 bits.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="SRHTLVREG" title="Segment Routing Header TLVs Register">
        <t>This document requests the creation of a new IANA managed registry
        to identify SRH TLVs. The registration procedure is "Expert Review" as
        defined in <xref target="RFC8126"/>. Suggested registry name is
        "Segment Routing Header TLVs". A TLV is identified through an unsigned
        8 bit codepoint value, with assigned values 0-127 for TLVs that do not
        change en route, and 128-255 for TLVs that may change en route. The
        following codepoints are defined in this document: <figure
            align="center">
            <artwork align="left">
 Assigned      Description               Reference 
  Value
-----------------------------------------------------
   0           Pad1 TLV                  This document
   1           Reserved                  This document
   2           Reserved                  This document
   3           Reserved                  This document
   4           PadN TLV                  This document
   5           HMAC TLV                  This document
   6           Reserved                  This document
   124-126     Experimentation and Test  This document
   127         Reserved                  This document
   252-254     Experimentation and Test  This document
   255         Reserved                  This document</artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>Values 1,2,3,6 were defined in draft versions of this specification
        and are Reserved for backwards compatibility with early
        implementations and should not be reassigned. Values 127 and 255 are
        Reserved to allow for expansion of the Type field in future
        specifications if needed.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Implementation" title="Implementation Status">
      <t>This section is to be removed prior to publishing as an RFC.</t>

      <t>See <xref target="I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status"/> for
      updated deployment and interoperability reports.</t>

      <section anchor="IMPLINUX" title="Linux">
        <t>Name: Linux Kernel v4.14</t>

        <t>Status: Production</t>

        <t>Implementation: adds SRH, performs END processing, supports HMAC
        TLV</t>

        <t>Details: https://irtf.org/anrw/2017/anrw17-final3.pdf and <xref
        target="I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop"/></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IMPCISCO" title="Cisco Systems">
        <t>Name: IOS XR and IOS XE</t>

        <t>Status: Production (IOS XR), Pre-production (IOS XE)</t>

        <t>Implementation: adds SRH, performs END processing, no TLV
        processing</t>

        <t>Details: <xref target="I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop"/></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IMPFDIO" title="FD.io">
        <t>Name: VPP/Segment Routing for IPv6</t>

        <t>Status: Production</t>

        <t>Implementation: adds SRH, performs END processing, no TLV
        processing</t>

        <t>Details: https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/Segment_Routing_for_IPv6 and
        <xref target="I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop"/></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="IMPBAREFOOT" title="Barefoot">
        <t>Name: Barefoot Networks Tofino NPU</t>

        <t>Status: Prototype</t>

        <t>Implementation: performs END processing, no TLV processing</t>

        <t>Details: <xref target="I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop"/></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Juniper">
        <t>Name: Juniper Networks Trio and vTrio NPU's</t>

        <t>Status: Prototype &amp; Experimental</t>

        <t>Implementation: SRH insertion mode, Process SID where SID is an
        interface address, no TLV processing</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Huawei">
        <t>Name: Huawei Systems VRP Platform</t>

        <t>Status: Production</t>

        <t>Implementation: adds SRH, performs END processing, no TLV
        processing</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Contributors" title="Contributors">
      <t>Kamran Raza, Zafar Ali, Brian Field, Daniel Bernier, Ida Leung, Jen
      Linkova, Ebben Aries, Tomoya Kosugi, Eric Vyncke, David Lebrun, Dirk
      Steinberg, Robert Raszuk, Dave Barach, John Brzozowski, Pierre Francois,
      Nagendra Kumar, Mark Townsley, Christian Martin, Roberta Maglione, James
      Connolly, Aloys Augustin contributed to the content of this
      document.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Ole Troan, Bob Hinden, Ron Bonica,
      Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter, Alexandru Petrescu, Punit Kumar Jaiswal,
      and David Lebrun for their comments to this document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8200.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5095.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6407.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8402.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2473.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4302.xml"?>

      <reference anchor="FIPS180-4"
                 target="http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/fips-180-4.pdf">
        <front>
          <title>FIPS 180-4 Secure Hash Standard (SHS)</title>

          <author>
            <organization>National Institute of Standards and
            Technology</organization>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="2012"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-interop.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2104.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5340.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5308.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6438.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6437.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4443.xml"?>

      <reference anchor="SRN"
                 target="https://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/system/files/sosr18-final15-embedfonts.pdf">
        <front>
          <title>Software Resolved Networks: Rethinking Enterprise Networks
          with IPv6 Segment Routing</title>

          <author fullname="David Lebrun"/>

          <author fullname="Mathieu Jadin"/>

          <author fullname="Francois Clad"/>

          <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils"/>

          <author fullname="Olivier Bonaventure"/>

          <date year="2018"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
