<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
  <!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"> nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY RFC4291 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml"> zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY RFC6052 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6052.xml"> nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY RFC6169 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6169.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7343 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7343.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8402 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8402.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8499 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8499.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8754 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8754.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8986 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8986.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-spring-compression-analysis SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-spring-compression-analysis-03.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8986 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8986.xml"> wj     "&#8288;">
]>

<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="info" docName="draft-ietf-6man-sids-06" ipr="trust200902"> number="9602" consensus="true" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">

  <front>

<!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as follows:

Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide"). Please review as this leads to a repeat of "segment".

Original:
SRv6 Segment Identifiers in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture

Current:
Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Identifiers in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture

-->

    <title abbrev="SRv6 SIDs">SRv6 SIDs">Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Identifiers in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9602"/>
    <author fullname="Suresh Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan">
      <organization>Cisco</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>

          <city></city>

          <region></region>

          <code></code>

          <country></country>
        </postal>
        <email>suresh.krishnan@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date/>

    <area>Internet</area>
    <date month="June" year="2024"/>

    <area>INT</area>
    <workgroup>6man</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>The

<!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->

<keyword>example</keyword>

<!--[rfced] We had the following questions about the Abstract.

a) Please review our edits to the Abstract to ensure we have
maintained your intended meaning.

b) Please also review if the first sentence might be rewritten to
eliminate some redundancy (i.e., "over IPv6" and "IPv6 as underlying"
seem similar).

c) (Perhaps related to b) Please review the differences between the
similar text in the Abstract and the Introduction and let us know if
any updates need to be made to make them more uniform.  That is, might
the Abstract begin with the same sentence as now starts the
Introduction?

Original:
   The data plane for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) is built using
   IPv6 as the underlying forwarding plane.  Due to this underlying use
   of IPv6, Segment Identifiers (SIDs) used by SRv6 can resemble IPv6
   addresses and behave like them while exhibiting slightly different
   behaviors in some situations.  This document explores the
   characteristics of SRv6 SIDs and focuses on the relationship of SRv6
   SIDs to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture.  This document allocates
   and makes a dedicated prefix available for SRv6 SIDs.

Current:
The data plane for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) is built using IPv6
as the underlying forwarding plane. Thus, Segment Identifiers (SIDs)
used by SRv6 can resemble IPv6 addresses and behave like them in some
situations while exhibiting slightly different behaviors in others. This
document explores the characteristics of SRv6 SIDs and focuses on the
relationship of SRv6 SIDs to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture. This
document allocates and makes a dedicated prefix available for SRv6 SIDs.
-->

    <abstract>
      <t>The data plane for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) is built using
      IPv6 as the underlying forwarding plane. Thus, Segment Identifiers (SIDs) used by SRv6 can resemble IPv6
      addresses and behave like them in some situations while exhibiting slightly different
      behaviors in others. This document explores the characteristics
      of SRv6 SIDs and focuses on the relationship of SRv6 SIDs to the IPv6
      Addressing Architecture. This document allocates and makes a dedicated
      prefix available for SRv6 SIDs.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction"> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
      Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) <xref target="RFC8754"/> target="RFC8754" format="default"/> uses IPv6 as the underlying data plane. In SRv6, SR source nodes initiate packets with a segment identifier Segment Identifier (SID) in the Destination Address of the IPv6 header, and SR segment endpoint nodes process a local segment present in the Destination Address of an IPv6 header. Thus Segment Identifiers (SIDs) Thus, SIDs in SRv6 can can, and do do, appear in the Destination Address of IPv6 datagrams by design. This document explores the characteristics of SRv6 SIDs and focuses on the relationship of SRv6 SIDs to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture <xref target="RFC4291"/>. target="RFC4291" format="default"/>. This document allocates and makes a dedicated prefix available for SRv6 SIDs.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Terminology"> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>The following terms are used as defined in <xref target="RFC8402"/>.
      <list style="symbols"> target="RFC8402" format="default"/>.
      </t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Segment Routing (SR)</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>SR Domain</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Segment</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Segment Identifier (SID)</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>SRv6</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>SRv6 SID</t>
      </list>
    </t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The following terms are used as defined in <xref target="RFC8754"/>.
      <list style="symbols"> target="RFC8754" format="default"/>.
      </t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Segment Routing Header (SRH)</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>SR Source Node</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Transit Node</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>SR Segment Endpoint Node</t>
      </list>
    </t>
    <t>The
        </li>
      </ul>

        <t>
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
      "MAY", "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "OPTIONAL" "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be
    interpreted as described in BCP 14 BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
    target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
    shown here.
        </t>

    </section>
    <section title="SRv6 numbered="true" toc="default" anchor="section3">
      <name>SRv6 SIDs and the IPv6 Addressing Architecture"> Architecture</name>
      <t>
      <xref target="RFC8754"/> target="RFC8754" format="default"/> defines the Segment List of the SRH as a contiguous array of 128-bit IPv6 addresses, and addresses; further, it states that  each of the elements in this list are SIDs. But all of these elements are not necessarily made equal. Some of these elements may represent a local interface as described in Section 4.3 of <xref target="RFC8754"/> target="RFC8754" sectionFormat="of" section="4.3"/> as "A FIB entry that represents a local interface, not locally instantiated as an SRv6 SID". From this it It follows that not all the SIDs that appear in the SRH are SRv6 SIDs as defined by <xref target="RFC8402"/>. target="RFC8402" format="default"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
   As stated above, the non-SRv6-SID elements that appear in
   the SRH SID list are simply IPv6 addresses assigned to local
   interfaces
   interfaces, and they need to conform to <xref target="RFC4291"/>. target="RFC4291" format="default"/>. So, the following discussions are applicable solely to SRv6 SIDs that are not assigned to local interfaces.
      </t>
      <t>
      One of the key questions to address is how these SRv6 SIDs appearing as IPv6 Destination Addresses are perceived and treated by "transit nodes" (that are not required to be capable of processing a Segment or the Segment Routing Header).
      </t>
      <t>
      Section 3.1. of
      <xref target="RFC8986"/> target="RFC8986" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/> describes the format of an SRv6 SID as being composed of three parts parts, LOC:FUNCT:ARG, where a locator (LOC) is encoded in the L most significant bits of the SID, SID followed by F bits of function (FUNCT) and A bits of arguments (ARG). If L+F+A &lt; 128,
      the ARG is followed by enough zero bits to fill the 128 bit 128-bit SID. Such an SRv6 SID is assigned to a node within a prefix defined as a Locator of length L.

<!--[rfced] Looking at BCP 198, we see the use of
     "longest-match-first".  But it is used to describe rules and
     algorithms (we do see "implement longest-match-first on prefixes"
     in the Abstract).  Should the use of "longest match" be updated
     here?

Original:
When an SRv6 SID occurs in the IPv6 Destination Address of an IPv6 header,
only the longest match prefix corresponding to the Locator [BCP198] is
used by the transit node to forward the packet to the node identified by
the Locator.

Perhaps:
When an SRv6 SID occurs in the IPv6 Destination Address of an IPv6 header,
only the longest-match-first prefix corresponding to the Locator [BCP198]
is used by the transit node to forward the packet to the node identified
by the Locator.

Or perhaps:
When an SRv6 SID occurs in the IPv6 Destination Address of an IPv6 header,
only the longest matching prefix corresponding to the Locator [BCP198] is
used by the transit node to forward the packet to the node identified by
the Locator.

-->
      When an SRv6 SID occurs in the IPv6 Destination Address of an IPv6 header, only the longest match prefix corresponding to the Locator <xref target="BCP198"/> target="BCP198" format="default"/> is used by the transit node to forward the packet to the node identified by the Locator.
      </t>
      <t>
	It is clear that this format for SRv6 SIDs is not compliant with the requirements set forth in <xref target="RFC4291"/> target="RFC4291" format="default"/> for IPv6 addresses addresses, but it is also clear that SRv6 SIDs are not intended for assignment onto interfaces on end hosts.

<!--[rfced] Might it be preferrable to use the titles of these
     documents in lieu of a description?

Original:
They look and act similarly to other mechanisms that use IPv6
addresses with different formats such as <xref target="RFC6052"/> [RFC6052] that defines the
IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators and <xref target="RFC7343"/> [RFC7343] that describes
ORCHIDv2 (a cryptographic hash identifier format).

Perhaps:
They look and act like other mechanisms that use IPv6 addresses with
different formats, such as those described in "IPv6 Addressing of
IPv4/IPv6 Translators" [RFC6052] and "An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay
Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)"
[RFC7343].

-->
	They look and act like other mechanisms that use IPv6 addresses with different formats, such as <xref target="RFC6052" format="default"/> (which defines the IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators) and <xref target="RFC7343" format="default"/> (which describes Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers version 2 (ORCHIDv2) (a cryptographic hash identifier format)).
      </t>
      <t>
        While looking at the transit nodes nodes, it becomes apparent that these
        addresses are used purely for forwarding and not
        for packet delivery to end hosts.
        Hence
        Hence, the relevant specification to apply here is <xref target="BCP198"/> that target="BCP198" format="default"/>, which requires implementations to support the use of variable
        length variable-length prefixes in forwarding while explicitly decoupling IPv6 routing and forwarding from the IPv6 address/prefix semantics described in <xref target="RFC4291"/>. target="RFC4291" format="default"/>. Please note that <xref target="BCP198"/> target="BCP198" format="default"/> does not override the rules in <xref target="RFC4291"/>, but target="RFC4291" format="default"/>: it merely limits where their impact is observed.
      </t>
      <t>
      Furthermore, in the SRv6 specifications, all SIDs assigned within a given Locator prefix are located inside the node identified by Locator.  Therefore  Therefore, there does not appear to be a conflict with section 2.6.1 of <xref target="RFC4291"/> target="RFC4291" sectionFormat="of" section="2.6.1"/> since subnet-router anycast addresses are neither required nor useful within a node.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Special numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Special Considerations for Compressed SIDs"> SIDs</name>
      <t>

<!--[rfced] For a closer 1:1 mapping between abbreviation and
     expansion and to match the use in [CSID], may we update the
     expansion of C-SIDs as follows?

Original:
compressed segment lists (C-SIDs)

Perhaps:
Compressed-SIDs (C-SIDs)
-->

      <xref target="CSID"/> target="I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression" format="default"/> introduces an encoding for
  compressed segment lists (C-SIDs), and describes how to use a single entry in the Segment list as a container for multiple SIDs. A node taking part in this mechanism accomplishes this by using the ARG part <xref target="RFC8986"/> target="RFC8986" format="default"/> of the Destination Address of the IPv6 header to derive a new Destination Address. i.e., That is, the Destination Address field of the packet changes at a segment endpoint in a way similar to how the address changes as the result of processing a segment in the SRH.
      </t>
      <t>
      One key thing to note here is that the Locator Block at the beginning of the address does not get modified by the operations needed for supporting compressed SIDs. As we have established that the SRv6 SIDs are being treated simply as routing prefixes on transit nodes within the SR domain domain, this does not constitute a modification to the IPv6 data plane on such transit nodes and nodes: any changes are restricted to SR aware SR-aware nodes.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Allocation numbered="true" toc="default" anchor="section5">
      <name>Allocation of a Global Unicast Prefix for SIDs"> SIDs</name>
      <t>All of the SRv6 related SRv6-related specifications discussed above are intended to be applicable to a contained SR Domain or between collaborating SR Domains. Nodes either inside or outside the SR Domains that are not SR-aware
will not perform any special behavior for SRv6 SIDs and will treat
them solely as IPv6 routing prefixes.
      </t>
      <t>
      As an added factor of security, it is desirable to allocate some address space that explicitly signals that the addresses within that space cannot be expected to comply with <xref target="RFC4291"/>. target="RFC4291" format="default"/>. As described in Section 3 above, <xref target="section3"/>, there is precedent for mechanisms that use IPv6 addresses in a manner different from that specified in <xref target="RFC4291"/>. target="RFC4291" format="default"/>. This would be useful in identifying and potentially filtering packets at the edges of the SR Domains to make it simpler for the SR domain to fail closed.
      </t>
      <t>
      At the present time, global DNS <xref target="RFC8499"/> SHOULD NOT target="RFC9499" format="default"/> <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> reference addresses assigned from this block. Further specifications are needed to describe the conventions and guidelines for the use of this newly allocated address block. The SRv6 operational community, which is the first intended user of this block, is requested to come up with such conventions and guidelines in line with their requirements.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>IANA is requested numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>

<!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments about the IANA
     Considerations section:

a) We note that the two IANA registries:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml

and

https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml

Use two different headings / column titles.

We have updated the lead-in text to assign indicate the version shown matches
the second registry.  Please let us know if any further updates are
necessary/desired.

b) FYI - We have updated the allocation date to match that listed in
the IANA registry.
-->

      <t>IANA has assigned the following /16 address block from the IPv6 "IPv6 Unicast Address Registry Assignments" registry <xref target="UNICAST"/> target="UNICAST" format="default"/> for the purposes described in Section 5 <xref target="section5"/> and record recorded the allocation in the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry Registry" <xref target="SPECIAL"/>. target="SPECIAL" format="default"/> as follows:

      </t>
    <t>
    Address Block:  5f00::/16
    <br/>Name: Segment
<dl newline="true">
    <dt>Address Block:</dt>  <dd>5f00::/16</dd>
    <dt>Name:</dt><dd>Segment Routing (SRv6) SIDs
    <br/>RFC: This document
    <br/>Allocation Date: Allocation Date
    <br/>Termination Date: N/A
    <br/>Source: True
    <br/>Destination: True
    <br/>Forwardable: True
    <br/>Globally Reachable: False
    <br/>Reserved-by-Protocol: False
    </t> SIDs</dd>
    <dt>RFC:</dt> <dd>RFC 9602</dd>
    <dt>Allocation Date:</dt> <dd>2024-04</dd>
    <dt>Termination Date:</dt> <dd>N/A</dd>
    <dt>Source:</dt> <dd>True</dd>
    <dt>Destination:</dt> <dd>True</dd>
    <dt>Forwardable:</dt> <dd>True</dd>
    <dt>Globally Reachable:</dt> <dd>False</dd>
    <dt>Reserved-by-Protocol:</dt> <dd>False</dd></dl>

    </section>
    <section title="Security Considerations"> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security considerations for the use of Segment Routing <xref target="RFC8402"/>, target="RFC8402" format="default"/>, SRv6 <xref target="RFC8754"/>, target="RFC8754" format="default"/>, and SRv6 network programming <xref target="RFC8986"/> target="RFC8986" format="default"/>
      apply to the use of these addresses. The use of IPv6 tunneling mechanisms (including SRv6) also
      brings up additional concerns such as those described in <xref target="RFC6169"/>. target="RFC6169" format="default"/>. The usage of the prefix allocated by this document improves security by making it simpler to filter traffic at the edge of the SR domains.
      </t>
      <t>
      In case the deployments do not use this allocated prefix, additional care needs to be exercised at network ingress and egress points so that SRv6 packets do not leak out of SR domains and they do not accidentally enter SR unaware SR-unaware domains. Similarly, as stated in Section 5.1 of <xref target="RFC8754"/>, target="RFC8754" sectionFormat="of" section="5.1"/>, the SR domain needs to be configured to filter out  packets entering that use the selected prefix.
      </t>
    </section>

  </middle>
  <back>

    <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression" to="CSID"/>

    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml"/>

<referencegroup anchor="BCP198" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp198">
  <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7608.xml"/>
</referencegroup>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8402.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8754.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8986.xml"/>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6052.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6169.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7343.xml"/>

<!-- [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] IESG state: I-D Exists as of 04/17/24 -->
        <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression.xml"/>

<!--[rfced] Please note that we have removed the reference to
     draft-ietf-spring-compression-analysis as there were no citations
     to it in the text.  Please let us know any objections.-->

        <reference anchor="UNICAST" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments</title>
            <author fullname="IANA"/>
          </front>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="SPECIAL" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry">
          <front>
            <title>IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry</title>
            <author fullname="IANA"/>
          </front>
        </reference>

<!--[rfced] Please note that RFC 8499 has been obsoleted by RFC 9499.
     We have updated the reference and citation to point to the
     latter.  However, please review this time-related text (i.e., "at
     the present time") and let us know if any further updates are
     necessary.

Original:
At the present time, global DNS [RFC8499] SHOULD NOT reference
addresses assigned from this block.

-->

        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9499.xml"/>

      </references>
    </references>
   <section title="Acknowledgments"> numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>The author would like to extend a special note of thanks to Brian Carpenter and Erik Kline <contact fullname="Brian Carpenter"/> and  <contact fullname="Erik Kline"/> for their precisely summarized thoughts
      on this topic that provided the seed of this draft. document. The author would also like to thank Andrew Alston, Fred Baker, Ron Bonica, Nick Buraglio, Bruno Decraene, Dhruv Dhody, Darren Dukes, Linda Dunbar, Reese Enghardt, Adrian Farrel, Clarence Filsfils, Jim Guichard, Joel Halpern, Ted Hardie, Bob Hinden, Murray Kucherawy, Cheng Li, Acee Lindem, Jen Linkova, Gyan Mishra, Yingzhen Qu, Robert Raszuk, Alvaro Retana, Michael Richardson, John Scudder, Petr Spacek, Mark Smith, Dirk Steinberg, Ole Troan, Eduard Vasilenko, Eric Vyncke, Rob Wilton, Jingrong Xie, Chongfeng Xie  <contact fullname="Andrew Alston"/>, <contact fullname="Fred Baker"/>, <contact fullname="Ron Bonica"/>, <contact fullname="Nick Buraglio"/>, <contact fullname="Bruno Decraene"/>, <contact fullname="Dhruv Dhody"/>, <contact fullname="Darren Dukes"/>, <contact fullname="Linda Dunbar"/>, <contact fullname="Reese Enghardt"/>, <contact fullname="Adrian Farrel"/>, <contact fullname="Clarence Filsfils"/>, <contact fullname="Jim Guichard"/>, <contact fullname="Joel Halpern"/>, <contact fullname="Ted Hardie"/>, <contact fullname="Bob Hinden"/>, <contact fullname="Murray Kucherawy"/>, <contact fullname="Cheng Li"/>, <contact fullname="Acee Lindem"/>, <contact fullname="Jen Linkova"/>, <contact fullname="Gyan Mishra"/>, <contact fullname="Yingzhen Qu"/>, <contact fullname="Robert Raszuk"/>, <contact fullname="Alvaro Retana"/>, <contact fullname="Michael Richardson"/>, <contact fullname="John Scudder"/>, <contact fullname="Petr Spacek"/>, <contact fullname="Mark Smith"/>, <contact fullname="Dirk Steinberg"/>, <contact fullname="Ole Troan"/>, <contact fullname="Eduard Vasilenko"/>, <contact fullname="Éric Vyncke"/>, <contact fullname="Rob Wilton"/>, <contact fullname="Jingrong Xie"/>, <contact fullname="Chongfeng Xie"/>, and Juan  <contact fullname="Juan Carlos Zuniga Zuniga"/> for their ideas and comments to improve this document.
      </t>
   </section>

  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title="Normative References">
      &RFC2119;
      &RFC4291;
      <reference anchor="BCP198" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608">
        <front>
        <title>IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding</title>
        <author fullname="M. Boucadair" initials="M." surname="Boucadair"/>
        <author fullname="A. Petrescu" initials="A." surname="Petrescu"/>
        <author fullname="F. Baker" initials="F." surname="Baker"/>
        <date month="July" year="2015"/>
        <abstract>
        <t>
        IPv6 prefix length, as in IPv4, is a parameter conveyed and

<!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to
     be used in IPv6 routing inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and forwarding processes in accordance with the Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) architecture. The length of an IPv6 prefix let
     us know if/how they may be any number from zero to 128, although subnets using stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for address allocation conventionally use a /64 prefix. Hardware and software implementations of routing and forwarding should therefore impose no rules on prefix length, but implement longest-match-first on prefixes of any valid length.
        </t>
        </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="198"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7608"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7608"/>
      </reference>
      &RFC8402;
      &RFC8174;
      &RFC8754;
      &RFC8986;
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      &RFC6052;
      &RFC6169;
      &RFC7343;
      <reference anchor="CSID" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-09.txt">
        <front>
            <title>Compressed SRv6 made consistent.

Segment List Encoding in SRH</title>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng" initials="W." surname="Cheng">
            <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils">
            <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Zhenbin Li" initials="Z." surname="Li">
            <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Bruno Decraene" initials="B." surname="Decraene">
            <organization>Orange</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Francois Clad" initials="F." surname="Clad">
            <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="23" month="October" year="2023"/>
            <abstract>
            <t>
            This document specifies new flavors for the v. Segment Routing (SR) segment endpoint behaviors defined in RFC 8986, which enable the compression of an SRv6 segment list. Such compression significantly reduces the size of list
SR Domain v. SR domain
-->

<!-- [rfced] Please review the SRv6 encapsulation needed to steer packets over long segment lists.
            </t>
            </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-09"/>
        </reference>
      &I-D.ietf-spring-compression-analysis;
      <reference anchor="UNICAST" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml">
      <front>
        <title>IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments</title>
        <author fullname="IANA"/>
      </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="SPECIAL" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/">
      <front>
        <title>IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry</title>
        <author fullname="IANA"/>
      </front>
      </reference>
      &RFC8499;
   </references> "Inclusive Language" portion of the
     online Style Guide
     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
     and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should still be reviewed as a best practice.

-->

  </back>
</rfc>