diff --git a/keps/sig-network/0000-pod-network-health/README.md b/keps/sig-network/0000-pod-network-health/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..add14ae230ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-network/0000-pod-network-health/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,199 @@
+# Pod Network Health API
+
+## Summary
+Kubernetes currently lacks a native mechanism to represent basic
+pod-to-pod network health such as reachability and latency.
+This KEP proposes a Kubernetes-native API to express these signals
+in a standardized and extensible way.
+
+## Motivation
+Network issues are one of the most common causes of outages in Kubernetes.
+Today, operators rely on ad-hoc scripts, CNI-specific tools, or
+external observability systems to diagnose pod-to-pod connectivity issues.
+
+A standardized API enables:
+- Faster diagnosis of networking issues
+- Vendor-neutral observability
+- Better tooling integration
+
+## Goals
+- Define a Kubernetes-native abstraction for pod network health
+- Represent basic signals such as reachability and latency
+- Remain CNI-agnostic and implementation-neutral
+- Introduce the API as alpha behind a feature gate
+- Avoid requiring complete or full-mesh pod-to-pod coverage
+
+## Non-Goals
+- Deep packet inspection
+- Mandatory probing behavior
+- Automatic remediation
+- Replacing service meshes or observability platforms
+
+## User Stories
+
+### Cluster Operator
+As a cluster operator, I want to know whether two pods can communicate
+so that I can debug outages faster.
+
+### Platform Engineer
+As a platform engineer, I want a standard API to surface network health
+signals that can be consumed by monitoring systems.
+
+## Proposal
+Introduce an alpha Kubernetes API resource that represents observed
+network health between a source pod and a target pod.
+
+The API focuses on **representation**, not how data is collected.
+
+## API Design (High-Level)
+The API may include:
+- Source pod reference
+- Target pod reference
+- Reachability status
+- Optional latency metrics
+- Timestamp of last observation
+
+Exact fields will be refined during review.
+
+## Implementation Details
+- Introduced as alpha
+- Feature gated
+- No default probing required
+- Implementations may be controller-based, node-based, or vendor-provided
+
+## Why Consider Standardizing This API in Kubernetes?
+
+While pod-to-pod network health can be measured using an external
+controller and CRD, the motivation for a core Kubernetes API is to
+standardize semantics across clusters, CNIs, and tooling.
+
+Existing tools (for example, kube-latency:
+https://github.com/simonswine/kube-latency) demonstrate that connectivity
+and latency can be measured externally. However, these tools define
+their own schemas and reporting mechanisms, making it difficult for
+operators and platforms to build portable integrations.
+
+A core API would define a common contract and vocabulary, while allowing
+actual data collection and implementation to remain pluggable and
+external. As a validation step, this proposal is compatible with first
+prototyping the design as an external controller + CRD before considering
+promotion into core Kubernetes.
+
+## Intersection with Existing Kubernetes APIs
+
+A key question for this proposal is whether this functionality should
+exist as an external CRD or as a core Kubernetes API.
+
+This proposal argues for a core API based on how the resource naturally
+intersects with existing Kubernetes objects and control plane behavior.
+
+Specifically, PodNetworkHealth observations are tightly coupled to:
+
+- **Pods** (as first-class core objects being referenced)
+- **Nodes** (where observations may originate)
+- **NetworkPolicy** debugging and validation workflows
+- **kubectl describe / status** style operational diagnostics
+- Potential future integration with **Events** and **Conditions**
+- Standard tooling that today understands only core APIs
+
+While a CRD can represent similar data, it remains opaque to:
+
+- Native `kubectl` UX and discovery
+- Generic controllers and ecosystem tooling
+- Future integration with Pod Status, Events, or Conditions
+- Consistent behavior across Kubernetes distributions and platforms
+
+If standardized within Kubernetes, such an API could make it easier for
+tools and operators to rely on a common vocabulary for reporting
+network health observations without depending on tool-specific CRDs
+or schemas.
+
+However, this proposal does not assume that this must immediately be a
+core API. An external CRD-based prototype is a valid and encouraged
+first step to validate usefulness, scalability, and semantics before
+considering any form of standardization within Kubernetes.
+
+
+## Scalability and Semantics Considerations
+
+Any standardized Kubernetes API would imply defined semantics and eventual conformance.
+This proposal intentionally limits scope to avoid implying universal
+guarantees or required implementations.
+
+In particular:
+- The API does not require full pod-to-pod coverage
+- It does not mandate probing or measurement strategies
+- It does not imply a complete or global view of cluster network health
+
+Full mesh measurement of pod-to-pod health is infeasible at scale
+(O(N²)) and would generate unacceptable dataplane load in large
+clusters. As such, any data exposed via this API is expected to be:
+- sampled, targeted, or workload-specific
+- partial and best-effort
+- explicitly bounded in scope
+
+The API represents *reported observations*, not guarantees of reachability
+or latency across the entire cluster.
+
+The design must remain compatible with diverse dataplanes, including
+kernel-based, DPDK, Open vSwitch, and eBPF-only implementations, without
+assuming common probing or traffic interception mechanisms.
+
+```yaml
+apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1alpha1
+kind: PodNetworkHealth
+metadata:
+  name: pod-a-to-pod-b
+spec:
+  sourcePodRef:
+    namespace: default
+    name: pod-a
+  targetPodRef:
+    namespace: default
+    name: pod-b
+status:
+  reachable: true
+  latencyMillis: 3
+  lastObservedTime: "2026-01-22T10:15:30Z"
+  observedFromNode: worker-node-1
+```
+
+---
+
+This example illustrates how the resource relates to existing core objects:
+
+- `core/v1 Pod`
+- `core/v1 Node`
+- NetworkPolicy debugging workflows
+- Potential future integration with Pod Conditions or Events
+- Native `kubectl describe` diagnostics
+
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+- CNI-specific tooling (not portable)
+- External observability systems (not Kubernetes-native)
+- CLI-only debugging tools (not programmatic)
+
+## Risks and Mitigations
+**API stability risk**  
+Mitigated by alpha status and feature gating.
+
+**Performance impact**  
+Mitigated by avoiding mandatory probing.
+
+## Graduation Criteria
+
+### Alpha
+- API introduced behind feature gate
+- Experimental usage
+
+### Beta
+- Feedback from users
+- Stable semantics
+
+### GA
+- Production usage
+- Documented best practices
+
+## References
+- SIG-Network discussions (TBD)
diff --git a/keps/sig-network/0000-pod-network-health/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-network/0000-pod-network-health/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1277d4fb3ff8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-network/0000-pod-network-health/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+title: Pod Network Health API
+kep-number: 0000
+authors:
+  - Sahichowdary
+owning-sig: sig-network
+participating-sigs:
+  - sig-node
+status: provisional
+creation-date: 2025-01-24