<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.song-ioam-ipv6-support" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-ioam-ipv6-support-00">
   <front>
      <title>Approaches on Supporting IOAM in IPv6</title>
      <author initials="H." surname="Song" fullname="Haoyu Song">
         <organization>Futurewei</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="Z." surname="Li" fullname="Zhenbin Li">
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="S." surname="Peng" fullname="Shuping Peng">
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="March" day="2" year="2020" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   It has been proposed to encapsulate IOAM tracing option data fields
   in IPv6 HbH options header.  However, due to size of the trace data
   and its location in the IPv6 header packets, this arrangement creates
   practical challenges for implementation, especially when other
   extension headers, such as routing header, also exist and require in-
   network processing.  We propose several alternative approaches to
   address this challenge, including separating the IOAM trace data to a
   different extension header, using the postcard-based telemetry (e.g.,
   IOAM DEX) instead, and applying the segment IOAM trace export scheme,
   based on the network scenario and application requirements.  We
   discuss the pros and cons of each approach and foster standard
   convergence and industry adoption.


	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-song-ioam-ipv6-support-00" />
   
</reference>
