Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method into In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)
draft-he-ippm-integrating-am-into-ioam-01
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | hexiaoming , Frank Brockners , Haoyu Song , Giuseppe Fioccola , Aijun Wang | ||
| Last updated | 2024-01-08 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-he-ippm-integrating-am-into-ioam-01
IPPM Working Group X. He
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners
Expires: 11 July 2024 Cisco
H. Song
Futurewei
G. Fioccola
Huawei
A. Wang
China Telecom
8 January 2024
Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method into In Situ Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)
draft-he-ippm-integrating-am-into-ioam-01
Abstract
In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information.
Specifically, passport-based IOAM allows telemetry data generated by
each node along the path to be pushed into data packets when they
traverse the network, while postcard-based IOAM allows IOAM data
generated by each node to be directly exported without being pushed
into in-flight data packets. This document extends IOAM Direct
Export (DEX) Option-Type to integrate the Alternate-Marking Method
into IOAM.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 July 2024.
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problems and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Integrate the Alternate-Marking Method into IOAM . . . . . . 4
5. The Extended DEX Option-Type Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. The IOAM Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Packet Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Flow Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. IOAM Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Reserved Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. IOAM DEX Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.4. IOAM DEX Extension-Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
IOAM [RFC9197], which defines four possible IOAM-Option-Types: Pre-
allocated Trace, Incremental Trace, Proof of Transit (POT), and Edge-
to-Edge, is used for monitoring traffic in the network and for
incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data packets. IOAM
[RFC9197] is known as the passport mode, in which each node on the
path can add telemetry data to the user packets (i.e., stamps the
passport). IOAM Direct Export (DEX) [RFC9326] is used as a trigger
for IOAM nodes to directly export IOAM data to a receiving entity
such as a collector, analyzer, or controller. IOAM DEX is also
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
referred as the postcard mode, in which each node directly exports
the telemetry data using an independent packet (i.e., sends a
postcard) while the user packets are unmodified.
The disadvantage of the passport mode is that if a packet is dropped
on the path, the IOAM data collected are also lost. So the passport
mode such as IOAM Trace Option-Type has no ability to monitor packet
drop and packet drop location.
IOAM DEX Option-Type can complement IOAM Trace Option-Type in that
even if a packet is dropped on the path, the partial data collected
are still available. By correlating the data from different nodes,
the number of the discarded packets can be counted accurately and
packet drop location can be pinpointed.
The Alternate-Marking [RFC9341] technique has been proven to work
well to perform packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live
traffic. RFC9343 describes how the Alternate-Marking Method can be
used to measure performance metrics in IPv6. It defines an Extension
Header Option to encode Alternate-Marking information in both the
Hop-by-Hop Options Header and Destination Options Header. In order
to facilitate the deployment and improve the scalability of the
Alternate-Marking Method, the Flow Monitoring Identification
(FlowMonID) field is introduced. The benefits of introducing
FlowMonID are obvious: First, it helps to reduce the per-node
configuration; Second, it simplifies the counters handling; Third, it
eases the data export encapsulation and correlation for the
collectors.
This document presents the problems and challenges currently faced by
IOAM in measuring performance metrics such as packet loss, delay, and
jitter. In order to augment performance measurement of IOAM, IOAM
DEX Option-Type is extended to incorporate the Alternate-Marking
Method into IOAM.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Problems and Challenges
Although IOAM DEX Option-Type can complement IOAM Trace Option-Type
for monitoring packet loss, some issues have to be considered as
follows.
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
Issue 1: If an IOAM encapsulating node incorporates the DEX Option-
Type into all the traffic of interest it forwards, it may lead to an
excessive amount of exported data, which may overload the network and
the receiving entity. Therefore, an IOAM encapsulating node that
supports the DEX Option-Type MUST support the ability to incorporate
the DEX Option-Type selectively into a subset of the packets that are
forwarded by the IOAM encapsulating node.
Issue 2: In theory, if an IOAM encapsulating node incorporates the
DEX Option-Type into all the traffic it forwards, the fidelity of
packet loss measurement can be ensured. If the too small subset of
traffic or too low traffic sampling on an encapsulating node is
implemented, loss measurement results can not reflect the actual
packet drop, due to the fact that the transmitting packet interval
does not cover packet drop caused by instantaneous congestion such as
microbursts.
Issue 3: Because the IOAM data of the same user packet is generated
by every node along the path, the receiving entity needs more
processing overhead to correlate these data for packet loss
computation. The more user packets measured, the more processing
overhead is required.
Issue 4: While using the Alternate-Marking Method, traffic flows are
split into consecutive blocks: each block represents a measurable
entity unambiguously recognizable by all network devices along the
path. In contrast, based on IOAM DEX Option-Type, every IOAM node
directly exports an IOAM data to a receiving entity when every user
packet is forwarded, and the collected IOAM data are not split into
independent measurement blocks. It is the responsibility of the
receiving entity to determine the measurement period of performance
metrics such as packet loss, delay, and jitter. It is not beneficial
to uniform measurement methodology.
4. Integrate the Alternate-Marking Method into IOAM
To address the issues and challenges mentioned in Section 3, IOAM
needs to be augmented to implement performance measurement. The
Alternate-Marking Method has been widely employed in operators
networks. By integrating the Alternate-Marking Method into IOAM, the
benefits obtained include:
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
* While implementing performance measurement, an IOAM encapsulating
node may incorporate the DEX Option-Type into all the traffic of
interest it forwards; Meanwhile, an IOAM encapsulating node only
needs to select a very small subset of the packets that are
forwarded for IOAM trace monitoring (e.g., 1/10000 of all the
traffic of interest), so the amount of exported data is
significantly reduced to mitigate the network and the receiving
entity. The IOAM operation is detailed in section 6.
* Using the Alternate-Marking Method, an IOAM encapsulating node
could color all the traffic of interest it forwards, not a subset
of the packets, thus the fidelity of performance measurement such
as packet loss can be ensured.
* While using the Alternate-Marking Method, and in Hop-by-Hop mode
for loss measurement, every node along the path only exports a
packet carrying counter value of each measurement block including
a batch of packets; In End-to-End mode for loss measurement, only
the IOAM encapsulating node and the IOAM decapsulating node export
a packet carrying counter value of each measurement block. It
mitigates the network and the receiving entity greatly.
Furthermore, compared to IOAM DEX Option-Type, the receiving
entity needs much less processing overhead to correlate these
counters for packet loss computation.
* While using the Alternate-Marking Method, traffic flows are split
into consecutive blocks: each block represents a measurable entity
unambiguously recognizable by all network devices along the path,
thus the measurement period is completely determined by network
devices. The receiving entity does not need to concern about
determination of measurement period, but only compute the results
of each measurement period. It is beneficial to uniform
measurement methodology.
5. The Extended DEX Option-Type Format
The format of the extended DEX Option-Type is depicted in Figure 1.
All fields are same as DEX Option-Type Format defined in RFC9326
except the Reserved field. The extended DEX Option-Type Format uses
the most significant 2 bits of the Reserved field.
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Flags |Extension-Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type |D|L| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow ID (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Measurement Period Number (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: The Extended DEX Option-Type Format
Where:
Namespace-ID: 16-bit identifier of the IOAM namespace, as defined in
[RFC9197].
Flags: 8-bit field, comprised of 8 1-bit subfields. Flags are
allocated by IANA.
Extension-Flags: 8-bit field, comprised of 8 1-bit subfields.
Extension-Flags are allocated by IANA. Every bit in the Extension-
Flag field that is set to 1 indicates the existence of a
corresponding optional 4-octet field. Bit 0 (the most significant
bit) and bit 1 in the registry are allocated by [RFC9326], which are
specified as Flow ID and Sequence Number of the monitored traffic,
respectively. Bit 2 is specified as Measurement Period Number in
this draft.An IOAM node that receives an extended DEX Option-Type
with an unknown flag set to 1 MUST ignore the corresponding optional
field.
IOAM-Trace-Type: 24-bit identifier that specifies which IOAM data
types are used and the corresponding IOAM-Data-Fields should be
exported. The format of this field is as defined in [RFC9197].
L: 1-bit Loss flag for Packet Loss Measurement as described in
Section 6.1.
D: 1-bit Delay flag for Single Packet Delay Measurement as described
in Section 6.2.
Reserved: 6-bit field, reserved for future use. These bits MUST be
set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
Optional fields: The optional fields, if present, reside after the
Reserved field. The order of the optional fields is according to the
order of the respective bits, starting from the most significant bit,
that are enabled in the Extension-Flags field. Each optional field
is 4 octets long.
Flow ID: An optional 32-bit field representing the flow identifier.
If the actual Flow ID is shorter than 32 bits, it is zero padded in
its most significant bits. The field is set at the encapsulating
node and exported to the receiving entity by the forwarding nodes.
The Flow ID can be used to correlate the exported data of the same
flow from multiple nodes and from multiple packets. Flow ID values
are expected to be allocated in a way that avoids collisions. For
example, random assignment of Flow ID values can be subject to
collisions, while centralized allocation can avoid this problem. The
specification of the Flow ID allocation method is not within the
scope of this document.
Sequence Number: An optional 32-bit sequence number, starting from 0
and incremented by 1 for each packet from the same flow at the
encapsulating node that includes the DEX option. The Sequence
Number, when combined with the Flow ID, provides a convenient
approach to correlate the exported data from the same user packet.
Measurement Period Number(MPN): An optional 32-bit field representing
the measurement period number of the monitored flow, starting from 0
and incremented by 1 for the specified flow with the same Flow ID.
The field is set at the encapsulating node and exported to the
receiving entity by the forwarding nodes. The MPN, when combined
with the Flow ID, provides a convenient approach to correlate the
exported data of the same flow during the same measurement period
from multiple nodes.
6. The IOAM Operation
The extended DEX Option-Type SHOULD support to perform both
performance measurement and IOAM trace monitoring concurrently.
While both performance measurement and IOAM trace monitoring are
implemented concurrently, an IOAM encapsulating node MUST incorporate
the extended DEX Option-Type into all the traffic of interest it
forwards. For performance measurement, an IOAM encapsulating node
MUST mark every packet it forwards in "L" and "D" flag of the
extended DEX Option-Type; for IOAM trace monitoring, only a subset of
the packets are selected by an IOAM encapsulating node. For every
selected packet, an IOAM encapsulating node MUST set corresponding
bit flag to 1 in IOAM Trace-Type field of the extended DEX Option-
Type so that each node along the path needs to generate the specified
IOAM data exported to the receiving entity; for all the other packets
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
not selected, an IOAM encapsulating node MUST set all 24 bits flag to
0 in IOAM Trace-Type field of the extended DEX Option-Type, such that
each node along the path needs not generate the IOAM data exported to
the receiving entity.
6.1. Packet Loss Measurement
The measurement of the packet loss is detailed in [RFC9341]and
[RFC9343]. The packets of the flow identified by Flow ID are grouped
into batches, and all the packets within a batch are marked by
setting the L bit (Loss flag) to a same value. The source node (IOAM
encapsulating node) can switch the value of the L bit between 0 and 1
after a fixed number of packets or according to a fixed timer, and
this depends on the implementation. The source node is the only one
that marks the packets to create the batches, while the intermediate
nodes only read the marking values and identify the packet batches.
By counting the number of packets in each batch and comparing the
values measured by different network nodes along the path, it is
possible to measure the packet loss that occurred in any single batch
between any two nodes. Each batch represents a measurable entity
recognizable by all network nodes along the path, which export the
counter value of this batch along with the Flow ID and the MPN (if it
exists) to the receiving entity (e.g., the collector).
6.2. Packet Delay Measurement
Delay metrics MAY be calculated using the following two
possibilities:
Single-Marking Methodology: This approach uses only the L bit to
calculate both packet loss and delay. In this case, the D flag MUST
be set to zero on transmit and ignored by the monitoring points. The
alternation of the values of the L bit can be used as a time
reference to calculate the delay. Whenever the L bit changes and a
new batch starts, a network node can store the timestamp of the first
packet of the new batch; that timestamp can be compared with the
timestamp of the first packet of the same batch on a second node to
compute packet delay. But, this measurement is accurate only if no
packet loss occurs and if there is no packet reordering at the edges
of the batches. A different approach can also be considered, and it
is based on the concept of the mean delay. The mean delay for each
batch is calculated by considering the average arrival time of the
packets for the relative batch. There are limitations also in this
case indeed; each node needs to collect all the timestamps and
calculate the average timestamp for each batch. In addition, the
information is limited to a mean value.
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
Double-Marking Methodology: This approach is more complete and uses
the L bit only to calculate packet loss, and the D bit (Delay flag)
is fully dedicated to delay measurements. The idea is to use the
first marking with the L bit to create the alternate flow and, within
the batches identified by the L bit, a second marking with the D bit
set to 1 is used to select the packets for measuring delay. The D
bit creates a new set of marked packets that are fully identified
over the network so that a forwarding node can store and export the
timestamps of these packets; these timestamps can be compared with
the timestamps of the same packets on a second node to compute packet
delay values for each packet. The most efficient and robust mode is
to select a single double-marked packet for each batch; in this way,
there is no time gap to consider between the double-marked packets to
avoid their reorder. If a double-marked packet is lost, the delay
measurement for the considered batch is simply discarded, but this is
not a big problem because it is easy to recognize the problematic
batch and skip the measurement just for that one. So in order to
have more information about the delay and to overcome out-of-order
issues, this method is preferred.
In summary, the approach with Double Marking is better than the
approach with Single Marking. In the implementation, the timestamps
along with Flow ID and Sequence Number (if it exists) can be sent out
to the receiving entity that is responsible for the calculation.
6.3. Flow Identification
The Flow Identification (Flow ID) identifies the flow to be measured
and is required for some general reasons, which is described in
Section 5.3 of [RFC9343]. [RFC9343] uses 20-bit FlowMonID to
determine a monitored flow within the measurement domain. Compared
to the FlowMonID, the Flow ID in this draft is a 32-bit field, which
amplifies the FlowMonID space by 4096 times. Accordingly, a chance
of collision is greatly reduced in a distributed way.
When the 32-bit Flow ID is used for every source node, if there are N
edge nodes (source nodes) in a large-scale operator network, and each
source node can generate a unique Flow ID for every measured flow
independently and pseudo-randomly in a distributed way. Assuming
that each node randomly generates M different Flow IDs from the
available K flow identification space, then the total possible sample
space is
the Nth power of C (K, M)
and the total possible sample space not duplicate is
C1 (K, M)*C2 (K-M, M )*....*CN (k-(N-1)M, M)
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
Theoritically, the non collision probability is calculated as the
total possible sample space not duplicate divided by the total
possible sample space.
Take K=32nd power of 2, N=100, M=100 as an example, and the non
collision probability is 0.9885. That is to say, when generating
10000 concurrent flows, there might be 115 measured flow identifiers
incurring a chance of collision. If K=20th power of 2 is taken,
which corresponds to 20-bit Flow ID space, the collision probability
will drastically increases to approximately 100%. In practical
deployment scenarios of large-scale networks, the simultaneous
measurement flows could reach orders of magnitude of 100000 or even
higher, thus the collision probability will rise sharply.
It is preferred that Flow ID be assigned by the central controller.
Since the controller knows the network topology, it can allocate the
value properly to guarantee the uniqueness of Flow ID allocation.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. IOAM Type
The "IOAM Option-Type" registry is defined in Section 7.1 of
[RFC9197].
IANA is requested to allocate the following code point from the "IOAM
Option-Type" registry as follows:
TBD-type IOAM Extended DEX Option Type.
If possible, IANA is requested to allocate code point 5 (TBD-type).
7.2. Reserved Field
IANA is requested to allocate the following 2-bit flags for
performance measurement from the 8-bit Reserved field created by
IANA.
Bit 0 (the most significant bit): 1-bit Loss flag for Packet Loss
Measurement.
Bit 1: 1-bit Delay flag for Packet Delay Measurement.
7.3. IOAM DEX Flags
IANA has created the "IOAM DEX Flags" registry. This registry
includes 8 flag bits. Allocation is based on the "IETF Review"
procedure defined in [RFC8126].
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
7.4. IOAM DEX Extension-Flags
IANA has created the "IOAM DEX Extension-Flags" registry. This
registry includes 8 flag bits. Bit 0 (the most significant bit) and
bit 1 in the registry are allocated by [RFC9326] and described in
Section 5.
IANA is requested to allocate bit 2 as Measurement Period Number in
the registry and described in Section 5.
Allocation of the other bits should be performed based on the "IETF
Review" procedure defined in [RFC8126].
8. Performance Considerations
The extended DEX Option-Type triggers IOAM data (including IOAM trace
data and performance measurement data) to be collected and/or
exported packets to be exported to a receiving entity. In some
cases, this may impact the receiving entity's performance.
Therefore, the performance impact of these exported packets is
limited by taking two measures: at the encapsulating nodes by
selective DEX encapsulation and at the transit nodes by limiting
exporting rate, which are detailed in [RFC9326]. These two measures
ensure that direct exporting is used at a rate that does not
significantly affect the network bandwidth and does not overload the
receiving entity.
When performance measurement is implemented based on the Alternate-
Marking Method, and in Hop-by-Hop mode for loss measurement, every
node along the path only exports a packet carrying counter value of
each measurement block including a batch of packets; In End-to-End
mode for loss measurement, only the IOAM encapsulating node and the
IOAM decapsulating node export a packet carrying counter value of
each measurement block. Meanwhile, an IOAM encapsulating node only
needs to select a very small subset of the packets that are forwarded
for IOAM trace monitoring (e.g., 1/10000 of all the traffic), so the
amount of exported data is significantly reduced to mitigate the
network and the receiving entity. In addition, compared with IOAM
DEX Option-Type for packet loss calculation, due to a significant
reduction in the number of exported packets, the receiving entity
needs much less processing overhead to correlate these counters for
packet loss computation.
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
9. Security Considerations
The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
[RFC9197], and the security considerations of IOAM DEX Option-Type
are discussed in [RFC9326]. There are not additional security
considerations in this extended IOAM DEX Option-Type.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.
[RFC9326] Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.
[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.
[RFC9343] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method",
RFC 9343, DOI 10.17487/RFC9343, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9343>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Integrating the Alternate-Marking Method January 2024
[RFC9486] Bhandari, S., Ed. and F. Brockners, Ed., "IPv6 Options for
In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(IOAM)", RFC 9486, DOI 10.17487/RFC9486, September 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9486>.
Authors' Addresses
Xiaoming He
China Telecom
Email: hexm4@chinatelecom.cn
Frank Brockners
Cisco
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Haoyu Song
Futurewei
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
He, et al. Expires 11 July 2024 [Page 13]