draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-06.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: November 25, 2018 N. Elkins Expires: January 1, 2019 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
May 24, 2018 June 30, 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-ipv6-05 draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-06
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 minimal IP packet,
formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, referred to as Type-P
referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo identifies that IPv4-IPv6
identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements co-existence can challenge measurements within the scope of the IPPM
within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases include, Framework. Example use cases include, but are not limited to
but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, or protocol IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, or protocol encapsulation. IPv6 header
encapsulation. IPv6 header compression and use of IPv6 over Low- compression and use of IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
Power Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN) are considered and excluded (6LoWPAN) are considered and excluded from the standard-formed packet
from the standard-formed packet evaluation. evaluation.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] and updated "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
by [RFC8174]. 14[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 November 25, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 20 skipping to change at page 3, line 20
metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition
[RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement [RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement
of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312]. of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312].
The IPPM framework [RFC2330] recognized (in section 13) that many The IPPM framework [RFC2330] recognized (in section 13) that many
aspects of IP packets can influence its processing during transfer aspects of IP packets can influence its processing during transfer
across the network. across the network.
In Section 15 of [RFC2330], the notion of a "standard-formed" packet In Section 15 of [RFC2330], the notion of a "standard-formed" packet
is defined. However, the definition was never updated to include is defined. However, the definition was never updated to include
IPv6, as the original authors planned. IPv6, as the original authors originally desired to do.
In particular, IPv6 Extension Headers and protocols which use IPv6 In particular, IPv6 Extension Headers and protocols which use IPv6
header compression are growing in use. This memo seeks to provide header compression are growing in use. This memo seeks to provide
the needed updates. the needed updates.
2. Scope 2. Scope
The purpose of this memo is to expand the coverage of IPPM metrics to The purpose of this memo is to expand the coverage of IPPM metrics to
include IPv6, and to highlight additional aspects of test packets and include IPv6, and to highlight additional aspects of test packets and
make them part of the IPPM performance metric framework. make them part of the IPPM performance metric framework.
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 7
value of the metric depends on characteristics of the IP packet(s) value of the metric depends on characteristics of the IP packet(s)
used to make the measurement. Potential influencing factors include used to make the measurement. Potential influencing factors include
IP header fields and their values, but also higher-layer protocol IP header fields and their values, but also higher-layer protocol
headers and their values. Consider an IP-connectivity metric: one headers and their values. Consider an IP-connectivity metric: one
obtains different results depending on whether one is interested in obtains different results depending on whether one is interested in
connectivity for packets destined for well-known TCP ports or connectivity for packets destined for well-known TCP ports or
unreserved UDP ports, or those with invalid IPv4 checksums, or those unreserved UDP ports, or those with invalid IPv4 checksums, or those
with TTL or Hop Limit of 16, for example. In some circumstances with TTL or Hop Limit of 16, for example. In some circumstances
these distinctions will result in special treatment of packets in these distinctions will result in special treatment of packets in
intermediate nodes and end systems (for example, if Diffserv intermediate nodes and end systems (for example, if Diffserv
[RFC2474], ECN [RFC3168], Router Alert, Hop-by-hop extensions [RFC2474], ECN [RFC3168], Router Alert [RFC6398], Hop-by-hop
[RFC7045], or Flow Labels [RFC6437] are used, or in the presence of extensions [RFC7045], or Flow Labels [RFC6437] are used, or in the
firewalls or RSVP reservations). presence of firewalls or RSVP reservations).
Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a
"packet of Type-P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly "packet of Type-P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly
defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially
defined (e.g., "with a payload of B octets"), or left generic. Thus defined (e.g., "with a payload of B octets"), or left generic. Thus
we may talk about generic IP-Type-P-connectivity or more specific IP- we may talk about generic IP-Type-P-connectivity or more specific IP-
port-HTTP-connectivity. Some metrics and methodologies may be port-HTTP-connectivity. Some metrics and methodologies may be
fruitfully defined using generic Type-P definitions which are then fruitfully defined using generic Type-P definitions which are then
made specific when performing actual measurements. made specific when performing actual measurements.
skipping to change at page 5, line 10 skipping to change at page 5, line 10
Local policies in intermediate nodes based on examination of IPv6 Local policies in intermediate nodes based on examination of IPv6
Extension Headers may affect measurement repeatability. If Extension Headers may affect measurement repeatability. If
intermediate nodes follow the recommendations of [RFC7045], intermediate nodes follow the recommendations of [RFC7045],
repeatability may be improved to some degree. repeatability may be improved to some degree.
A closely related note: it would be very useful to know if a given A closely related note: it would be very useful to know if a given
Internet component (like host, link, or path) treats equally a class Internet component (like host, link, or path) treats equally a class
C of different types of packets. If so, then any one of those types C of different types of packets. If so, then any one of those types
of packets can be used for subsequent measurement of the component. of packets can be used for subsequent measurement of the component.
This suggests we devise a metric or suite of metrics that attempt to This suggests we devise a metric or suite of metrics that attempt to
determine C. determine class C (a designation which has no relationship to address
assignments, of course).
Load balancing over parallel paths is one particular example where Load balancing over parallel paths is one particular example where
such a class C would be more complex to determine in IPPM such a class C would be more complex to determine in IPPM
measurements. Load balancers often use flow identifiers, computed as measurements. Load balancers and routers often use flow identifiers,
hashes of (specific parts of) the packet header, for deciding among computed as hashes of (specific parts of) the packet header, for
the available parallel paths a packet will traverse. Packets with deciding among the available parallel paths a packet will traverse.
identical hashes are assigned to the same flow and forwarded to the Packets with identical hashes are assigned to the same flow and
same resource in the load balancer's pool. The presence of a load forwarded to the same resource in the load balancer's (or router's)
balancer on the measurement path, as well as the specific headers and pool. The presence of a load balancer on the measurement path, as
fields that are used for the forwarding decision, are not known when well as the specific headers and fields that are used for the
measuring the path as a black-box. Potential assessment scenarios forwarding decision, are not known when measuring the path as a
include the measurement of one of the parallel paths, and the black-box. Potential assessment scenarios include the measurement of
measurement of all available parallel paths that the load balancer one of the parallel paths, and the measurement of all available
can use. Knowledge of a load balancer's flow definition parallel paths that the load balancer can use. Knowledge of a load
(alternatively: its class C specific treatment in terms of header balancer's flow definition (alternatively: its class C specific
fields in scope of hash operations) is therefore a prerequisite for treatment in terms of header fields in scope of hash operations) is
repeatable measurements. A path may have more than one stage of load therefore a prerequisite for repeatable measurements. A path may
balancing, adding to class C definition complexity. have more than one stage of load balancing, adding to class C
definition complexity.
4. Standard-Formed Packets 4. Standard-Formed Packets
Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP
packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard- packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard-
formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following
REQUIRED criteria: REQUIRED criteria:
+ It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific + It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific
criteria. criteria.
skipping to change at page 6, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
the Source to the Destination if the Hop Limit 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 Limit 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 [IANA-6P]. Parameters, specified in [IANA-6P].
Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard- Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard-
formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
(6LowPAN, [RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]). (6LowPAN, [RFC4944]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]).
IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in
[RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and [RFC4944] 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 of IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU layer enables the transfer of 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
IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that would be stored in IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that would be stored in
intermediate nodes, poses substantial challenges to measurements. intermediate nodes, poses substantial challenges to measurements.
Likewise, ROHC operates statefully in compressing headers on Likewise, ROHC operates statefully in compressing headers on
subpaths, storing state in intermediate hosts. The modification of subpaths, storing state in intermediate hosts. The modification of
measurement packets' Type-P by ROHC and 6LowPAN, as well as measurement packets' Type-P by ROHC and 6LowPAN, as well as
requirements with respect to the concept of standard-formed packets requirements with respect to the concept of standard-formed packets
for these two protocols requires substantial work. Because of these for these two protocols requires substantial work. Because of these
reasons we consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope reasons we consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope
for the standard-formed packet evaluation. for the standard-formed packet evaluation.
The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into
focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
reasons we consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope reasons we consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope
for the standard-formed packet evaluation. for the standard-formed packet evaluation.
The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into
focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use
cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] in enterprise environments can benefit from [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] in enterprise environments can benefit from
inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension
headers in hosts along the measurement path. headers in hosts along the measurement path.
[RFC8250] endorses the use of IPv6 extension headers for measurement [RFC8250] endorses the use of IPv6 Destination Option for measurement
purposes, consistent with other approved IETF specifications. purposes, consistent with other approved IETF specifications.
The following additional considerations apply when IPv6 Extension The following additional considerations apply when IPv6 Extension
Headers are present: Headers are present:
o Extension Header inspection: Some intermediate nodes may inspect o Extension Header inspection: Some intermediate nodes may inspect
Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit. In Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit. In
exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a sub- exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a sub-
optimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or unrepeatable. optimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or unrepeatable.
The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed, with a The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed, with a
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
o Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV o Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV
encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes
while in transit. The resulting packet may be standard-formed, while in transit. The resulting packet may be standard-formed,
with a corresponding Type-P. with a corresponding Type-P.
o Extension Header insertion or deletion: Although such behavior is o Extension Header insertion or deletion: Although such behavior is
not endorsed by current standards, it is possible that Extension not endorsed by current standards, it is possible that Extension
Headers could be added to, or removed from the header chain. The Headers could be added to, or removed from the header chain. The
resulting packet may be standard-formed, with a corresponding resulting packet may be standard-formed, with a corresponding
Type-P. Type-P. This point simply encourages measurement system designers
to be prepared for the unexpected, and to notify users when such
events occur. There are issues with Extension Header insertion
and deletion of course, such as exceeding the path MTU due to
insertion, etc.
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
with the test results. with the test results.
It is further REQUIRED that if a packet is described as having a It is further REQUIRED that if a packet is described as having a
"length of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload "length of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload
length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets, length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets,
including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in
skipping to change at page 8, line 48 skipping to change at page 9, line 6
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 [RFC7915] 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. Example
Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to: 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
intermediate nodes. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header intermediate nodes. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header
compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement
packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement
path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P
modification. Measurements at observation points along the path modification. Measurements at observation points along the path
may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet. may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet.
o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have
skipping to change at page 10, line 30 skipping to change at page 10, line 35
This memo makes no requests of IANA. This memo makes no requests of IANA.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Brian Carpenter for identifying the lack of IPv6 The authors thank Brian Carpenter for identifying the lack of IPv6
coverage in IPPM's Framework, and for listing additional coverage in IPPM's Framework, and for listing additional
distinguishing factors for packets of Type-P. Both Brian and Fred distinguishing factors for packets of Type-P. Both Brian and Fred
Baker discussed many of the interesting aspects of IPv6 with the co- Baker discussed many of the interesting aspects of IPv6 with the co-
authors, leading to a more solid first draft: thank you both. Thanks authors, leading to a more solid first draft: thank you both. Thanks
to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text. to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text. As we
completed our journey, Nevil Brownlee, Mike Heard, Spencer Dawkins,
Warren Kumari, and Suresh Krishnan all contributed useful
suggestions.
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>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 11, line 28 skipping to change at page 11, line 33
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095, ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095,
July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3095>. July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3095>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC4494] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., and J. Lee, "The AES-CMAC-96
Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 4494,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4494, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4494>.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 23 skipping to change at page 12, line 28
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC6398] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, DOI 10.17487/RFC6398, October
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.
[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>.
[RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and [RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012, RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 46
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
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov, Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon, P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
"Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam- "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-02 (work in progress), March 2018. data-03 (work in progress), June 2018.
[IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) [IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January
2018. 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,
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
52 lines changed or deleted 65 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/