Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method in Segment Routing
draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Giuseppe Fioccola , Gunter Van de Velde , Mauro Cociglio , Praveen Muley | ||
| Last updated | 2018-04-29 (Latest revision 2017-10-26) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
[RFC6294] makes a survey of Proposed Use Cases for the IPv6 Flow Label. The IPv6 protocol includes a flow label in every packet header, but this field is, according to [RFC6294], not used in practice. This document describes how the alternate marking method can be used as the passive performance measurement method in a IPv6 domain.
Authors
Giuseppe Fioccola
Gunter Van de Velde
Mauro Cociglio
Praveen Muley
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)