draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-03.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini
Intended status: Informational TU Wien Intended status: Informational TU Wien
Expires: April 13, 2018 N. Elkins Expires: September 2, 2018 N. Elkins
Inside Products, Inc. Inside Products, Inc.
M. Ackermann M. Ackermann
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
V. Hegde V. Hegde
Consultant Consultant
October 10, 2017 March 1, 2018
IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02 draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-03
Abstract Abstract
This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC
2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing. 2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing.
It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to
include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimum standard- include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimum standard-
formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets,
referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo
identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 5, line 50 skipping to change at page 5, line 50
o Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the o Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the
size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload. size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload.
o Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the o Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the
Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each
hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255. hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.
o It does not contain IP options unless explicitly noted. o It does not contain IP options unless explicitly noted.
For an IPv6 ([RFC2460] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the For an IPv6 ([RFC8200] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the
following criteria are required: following criteria are required:
o The version field is 6. o The version field is 6.
o Its total length corresponds to the size of the IPv6 header (40 o Its total length corresponds to the size of the IPv6 header (40
octets) plus the length of the payload as given in the IPv6 octets) plus the length of the payload as given in the IPv6
header. header.
o The payload length value for this packet (including Extension o The payload length value for this packet (including Extension
Headers) conforms to the IPv6 specifications. Headers) conforms to the IPv6 specifications.
o Either the packet possesses sufficient Hop Count to travel from o Either the packet possesses sufficient Hop Limit to travel from
the Source to the Destination if the Hop Count is decremented by the Source to the Destination if the Hop Limit is decremented by
one at each hop, or it possesses the maximum Hop Count of 255. one at each hop, or it possesses the maximum Hop Limit of 255.
o Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers, or it o Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers, or it
contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in
the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming
order (Next Header). order (Next Header).
o All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found o All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found
in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters, partly specified in [RFC7045]. Parameters, partly specified in [IANA-6P].
Two mechanisms must be addressed in the context of standard-formed Two mechanisms must be addressed in the context of standard-formed
packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN, packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN,
[RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]). IPv6 [RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]). IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in
[RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and [RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and
[RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations proposes solutions [RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations proposes solutions
for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments. An adaptation for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments. An adaptation
layer enables the transfer IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU layer enables the transfer IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU
smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 7, line 42
o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed
at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in
Internet measurement, and requires a new Type-P to be reported. Internet measurement, and requires a new Type-P to be reported.
We further require that if a packet is described as having a "length We further require that if a packet is described as having a "length
of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload length in of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload length in
octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets, including any octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets, including any
Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in [RFC2675] are not Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in [RFC2675] are not
covered by this length analysis. In practice, the path MTU will covered by this length analysis. In practice, the path MTU will
restrict the length of standard-formed packets that can successfully restrict the length of standard-formed packets that can successfully
traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD, [RFC1191] and traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6 (PMTUD,
[RFC1981]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLMTUD, [RFC8201]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD,
[RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent fragmentation or ICMP error [RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent fragmentation (or ICMP error
messages as a result of IPv6 extension header manipulation. messages) as a result of IPv6 extension header manipulation.
So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP connectivity metric So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP connectivity metric
as "IP-type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP as "IP-type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP
Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly, "IP-type- Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly, "IP-type-
P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv Field set to 0", since standard- P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv Field set to 0", since standard-
formed is already implied by convention. Changing the contents of a formed is already implied by convention. Changing the contents of a
field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or Flow Label may field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or Flow Label may
have a profound affect on packet handling during transit, but does have a profound affect on packet handling during transit, but does
not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. Likewise, the not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. Likewise, the
addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change
skipping to change at page 8, line 24 skipping to change at page 8, line 24
and its practical use is limited. This is why this memo deprecates and its practical use is limited. This is why this memo deprecates
the concept of the "minimal IP packet from A to B". the concept of the "minimal IP packet from A to B".
5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques 5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques
This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two
critical conventions of the IPPM Framework, namely packets of Type-P critical conventions of the IPPM Framework, namely packets of Type-P
and standard-formed packets. The need for co-existence of IPv4 and and standard-formed packets. The need for co-existence of IPv4 and
IPv6 has originated transitioning standards like the Framework for IPv6 has originated transitioning standards like the Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation in [RFC6144] or IP/ICMP Translation Algorithms IPv4/IPv6 Translation in [RFC6144] or IP/ICMP Translation Algorithms
in [RFC6145] and [RFC7757]. in [RFC7915] and [RFC7757].
The definition and execution of measurements within the context of The definition and execution of measurements within the context of
the IPPM Framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms the IPPM Framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms
are present along the measurement path. In particular use cases like are present along the measurement path. In particular use cases like
IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header
compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's
Type-P along the path. All these changes must be reported. Type-P along the path. All these changes must be reported.
Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to: Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to:
o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in
skipping to change at page 9, line 38 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
internal state allocation in intermediate nodes can be an explicit internal state allocation in intermediate nodes can be an explicit
use case for measurements. use case for measurements.
o Variable delay due to packet length. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or o Variable delay due to packet length. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or
header compression mechanisms modify the length of measurement header compression mechanisms modify the length of measurement
packets. The modification of the packet size may or may not packets. The modification of the packet size may or may not
change the way how the measurement path treats the packets. change the way how the measurement path treats the packets.
Points that are worthwhile discussing further: handling of large Points that are worthwhile discussing further: handling of large
packets in IPv6 (including fragment extension headers, PMTUD, packets in IPv6 (including fragment extension headers, PMTUD,
PLMTUD), extent of coverage for 6LO and IPv6 Header Compression, and PLPMTUD), extent of coverage for 6LO and IPv6 Header Compression, and
the continued need to define a "minimal standard-formed packet". the continued need to define a "minimal standard-formed packet".
. .
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
live paths are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and [RFC5357]. live paths are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and [RFC5357].
When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those
skipping to change at page 10, line 29 skipping to change at page 10, line 29
to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text. to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999, RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000, BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.
[RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., [RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
skipping to change at page 12, line 18 skipping to change at page 12, line 9
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.
[RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for [RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for
Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>. 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144, IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>. April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 10 skipping to change at page 12, line 45
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
[RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address [RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address
Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757, Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.
[RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
"IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 [RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017, Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January
2018.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Al Morton Al Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 36 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/