In-situ OAM Direct Exporting
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Authors Haoyu Song  , Barak Gafni  , Tianran Zhou  , Zhenbin Li  , Frank Brockners  , Shwetha Bhandari  , Ramesh Sivakolundu  , Tal Mizrahi 
Last updated 2021-12-15 (latest revision 2021-10-13)
Replaces draft-ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
Document shepherd Tommy Pauly
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to tpauly@apple.com
IPPM                                                             H. Song
Internet-Draft                                                 Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track                                B. Gafni
Expires: April 16, 2022                                           Nvidia
                                                                 T. Zhou
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                                  Huawei
                                                            F. Brockners
                                                                   Cisco
                                                        S. Bhandari, Ed.
                                                             Thoughtspot
                                                          R. Sivakolundu
                                                                   Cisco
                                                         T. Mizrahi, Ed.
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        October 13, 2021

                      In-situ OAM Direct Exporting
                 draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-07

Abstract

   In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
   for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information.
   Specifically, IOAM allows telemetry data to be pushed into data
   packets while they traverse the network.  This document introduces a
   new IOAM option type called the Direct Export (DEX) option, which is
   used as a trigger for IOAM data to be directly exported or locally
   aggregated without being pushed into in-flight data packets.  The
   exporting method and format are outside the scope of this document.

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 April 16, 2022.

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirement Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM Option Type . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       3.1.1.  DEX Packet Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  Responding to the DEX Trigger . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  The DEX Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  IOAM Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  IOAM DEX Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  IOAM DEX Extension-Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Performance Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Hop Limit in Direct Exporting  . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   IOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is used for monitoring traffic in the
   network, and for incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data
   packets.

   IOAM makes use of four possible IOAM options, defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]: Pre-allocated Trace Option, Incremental
   Trace Option, Proof of Transit (POT) Option, and Edge-to-Edge Option.

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   This document defines a new IOAM option type (also known as an IOAM
   type) called the Direct Export (DEX) option.  This option is used as
   a trigger for IOAM nodes to locally aggregate and process IOAM data,
   and/or to export it to a receiving entity (or entities).  Throughout
   the document this functionality is referred to as collection and/or
   exporting.  A "receiving entity" in this context can be, for example,
   an external collector, analyzer, controller, decapsulating node, or a
   software module in one of the IOAM nodes.

   Note that even though the IOAM Option-Type is called "Direct Export",
   it depends on the deployment whether the receipt of a packet with DEX
   option type leads to the creation of another packet.  Some
   deployments might simply use the packet with the DEX option type to
   trigger local processing of OAM data.  The functionality of this
   local processing is not within the scope of this document.

   This draft has evolved from combining some of the concepts of PBT-I
   from [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] with immediate
   exporting from [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags].

2.  Conventions

2.1.  Requirement 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.

2.2.  Terminology

   Abbreviations used in this document:

   IOAM:      In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   OAM:       Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   DEX:       Direct EXporting

3.  The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM Option Type

3.1.  Overview

   The DEX option is used as a trigger for collecting IOAM data locally
   or for exporting it to a receiving entity (or entities).
   Specifically, the DEX option can be used as a trigger for collecting
   IOAM data by an IOAM node and locally aggregating it; thus, this

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   aggregated data can be periodically pushed to a receiving entity, or
   pulled by a receiving entity on-demand.

   This option is incorporated into data packets by an IOAM
   encapsulating node, and removed by an IOAM decapsulating node, as
   illustrated in Figure 1.  The option can be read but not modified by
   transit nodes.  Note: the terms IOAM encapsulating, decapsulating and
   transit nodes are as defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

                                      ^
                                      |Exported IOAM data
                                      |
                                      |
                                      |
                +--------------+------+-------+--------------+
                |              |              |              |
                |              |              |              |
  User      +---+----+     +---+----+     +---+----+     +---+----+
  packets   |Encapsu-|     | Transit|     | Transit|     |Decapsu-|
  --------->|lating  |====>| Node   |====>| Node   |====>|lating  |---->
            |Node    |     | A      |     | B      |     |Node    |
            +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
            Insert DEX       Export         Export       Remove DEX
            option and      IOAM data      IOAM data     option and
            export data                                  export data

                        Figure 1: DEX Architecture

   The DEX option is used as a trigger to collect and/or export IOAM
   data.  The trigger applies to transit nodes, the decapsulating node,
   and the encapsulating node:

   o  An IOAM encapsulating node configured to incorporate the DEX
      option encapsulates (possibly a subset of) the packets it forwards
      with the DEX option, and MAY export and/or collect the requested
      IOAM data immediately.  Only IOAM encapsulating nodes are allowed
      to add the DEX option type to a packet.

   o  A transit node that processes a packet with the DEX option MAY
      export and/or collect the requested IOAM data.

   o  An IOAM decapsulating node that processes a packet with the DEX
      option MAY export and/or collect the requested IOAM data, and MUST
      decapsulate the IOAM header.

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   As in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], the DEX option can be incorporated
   into all or a subset of the traffic that is forwarded by the
   encapsulating node, as further discussed in Section 3.1.1 below.
   Moreover, IOAM nodes respond to the DEX trigger by exporting and/or
   collection IOAM data either for all traversing packets that carry the
   DEX option, or selectively only for a subset of these packets, as
   further discussed in Section 3.1.2 below.

3.1.1.  DEX Packet Selection

   If an IOAM encapsulating node incorporates the DEX option into all
   the traffic 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 MUST support the ability to incorporate the DEX option
   selectively into a subset of the packets that are forwarded by it.

   Various methods of packet selection and sampling have been previously
   defined, such as [RFC7014] and [RFC5475].  Similar techniques can be
   applied by an IOAM encapsulating node to apply DEX to a subset of the
   forwarded traffic.

   The subset of traffic that is forwarded or transmitted with a DEX
   option SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface capacity on any of the
   IOAM encapsulating node's interfaces.  It is noted that this
   requirement applies to the total traffic that incorporates a DEX
   option, including traffic that is forwarded by the IOAM encapsulating
   node and probe packets that are generated by the IOAM encapsulating
   node.  In this context N is a parameter that can be configurable by
   network operators.  If there is an upper bound, M, on the number of
   IOAM transit nodes in any path in the network, then it is recommended
   to use an N such that N >> M.  The rationale is that a packet that
   includes a DEX option may trigger an exported packet from each IOAM
   transit node along the path for a total of M exported packets.  Thus,
   if N >> M then the number of exported packets is significantly lower
   than the number of data packets forwarded by the IOAM encapsulating
   node.  If there is no prior knowledge about the network topology or
   size, it is recommended to use N>100.

3.1.2.  Responding to the DEX Trigger

   The DEX option specifies which data fields should be exported and/or
   collected, as specified in Section 3.2.  As mentioned above, the data
   can be locally collected, and optionally can be aggregated and
   exported to a receiving entity, either proactively or on-demand.  If
   IOAM data is exported, the format and encapsulation of the packet
   that contains the exported data is not within the scope of the

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   current document.  For example, the export format can be based on
   [I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport].

   An IOAM node that performs DEX-triggered exporting MUST support the
   ability to limit the rate of the exported packets.  The rate of
   exported packets SHOULD be limited so that the number of exported
   packets is significantly lower than the number of packets that are
   forwarded by the device.  The exported data rate SHOULD NOT exceed 1/
   N of the interface capacity on any of the IOAM node's interfaces.  It
   is recommended to use N>100.  Depending on the IOAM node's
   architecture considerations, the export rate may be limited to a
   lower number in order to avoid loading the IOAM node.  An IOAM node
   MAY maintain a counter or a set of counters that count the events in
   which the IOAM node receives a packet with the DEX option type and
   does not collect and/or export data due to the rate limits.

   Exported packets SHOULD NOT be exported over a path or a tunnel that
   is subject to IOAM direct exporting.  Furthermore, IOAM encapsulating
   nodes that can identify a packet as an IOAM exported packet MUST NOT
   push a DEX option into such a packet.  This requirement is intended
   to prevent nested exporting and/or exporting loops.

   A transit or decapsulating IOAM node that receives an unknown IOAM
   option type ignores it (as defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]), and
   specifically nodes that do not support the DEX option ignore it.
   Note that as per [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] a decapsulating node
   removes the IOAM encapsulation and all its IOAM options, and
   specifically in the case where one of these options is a (possibly
   unknown) DEX option.

3.2.  The DEX Option Format

   The format of the DEX option is depicted in Figure 2.  The length of
   the DEX option is at least 8 octets.  The DEX option MAY include one
   or more optional fields.  The existence of the optional fields is
   indicated by the corresponding flags in the Extension-Flags field.
   Two optional fields are defined in this document, the Flow ID and the
   Sequence Number fields.  Every optional field MUST be exactly 4
   octets long.  Thus, the Extension-Flags field explicitly indicates
   the length of the DEX option.  Defining a new optional field requires
   an allocation of a corresponding flag in the Extension-Flags field,
   as specified in Section 4.2.

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

       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                 |   Reserved    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Flow ID (optional)                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Sequence Number  (Optional)               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Figure 2: DEX Option Format

   Namespace-ID    A 16-bit identifier of the IOAM namespace, as defined
                   in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   Flags           An 8-bit field, comprised of 8 one-bit subfields.
                   Flags are allocated by IANA, as defined in
                   Section 4.2.

   Extension-Flags An 8-bit field, comprised of 8 one-bit subfields.
                   Extension-Flags are allocated by IANA, as defined in
                   Section 4.3.  Every bit in the Extension-Flag field
                   that is set to 1 indicates the existence of a
                   corresponding optional 4-octet field.  An IOAM node
                   that receives a DEX option with an unknown flag set
                   to 1 MUST ignore the corresponding optional field.

   IOAM-Trace-Type A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data fields
                   should be exported.  The format of this field is as
                   defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  Specifically,
                   the bit that corresponds to the Checksum Complement
                   data field should be assigned to be zero by the IOAM
                   encapsulating node, and ignored by transit and
                   decapsulating nodes.  The reason for this is that the
                   Checksum Complement is intended for in-flight packet
                   modifications and is not relevant for direct
                   exporting.

   Reserved        This field SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.

   Optional fields The optional fields, if present, reside after the
                   Reserved field.  The order of the optional fields is
                   according to the respective bits that are enabled in
                   the Extension-Flags field.  Each optional field is 4
                   octets long.

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   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.  The Flow
                   ID can be uniformly assigned by a central controller
                   or algorithmically generated by the encapsulating
                   node.  The latter approach cannot guarantee the
                   uniqueness of Flow ID, yet the conflict probability
                   is small due to the large Flow ID space.  The Flow ID
                   can be used to correlate the exported data of the
                   same flow from multiple nodes and from multiple
                   packets.

   Sequence Number An optional 32-bit sequence number starting from 0
                   and increasing by 1 for each following monitored
                   packet from the same flow at the encapsulating node.
                   The Sequence Number, when combined with the Flow ID,
                   provides a convenient approach to correlate the
                   exported data from the same user packet.

4.  IANA Considerations

4.1.  IOAM Type

   The "IOAM Type Registry" was defined in Section 7.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  IANA is requested to allocate the
   following code point from the "IOAM Type Registry" as follows:

   TBD-type   IOAM Direct Export (DEX) Option Type

   If possible, IANA is requested to allocate code point 4 (TBD-type).

4.2.  IOAM DEX Flags

   IANA is requested to define an "IOAM DEX Flags" registry.  This
   registry includes 8 flag bits.  Allocation is based on the "RFC
   Required" procedure, as defined in [RFC8126].

   New registration requests MUST use the following template:

   Bit:  Desired bit to be allocated in the 8 bit Flags field of the DEX
      option.

   Description:  Brief description of the newly registered bit.

   Reference:  Reference to the document that defines the new bit.

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

4.3.  IOAM DEX Extension-Flags

   IANA is requested to define an "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 this document, and
   described in Section 3.2.  Allocation of the other bits should be
   performed based on the "RFC Required" procedure, as defined in
   [RFC8126].

   Bit 0  "Flow ID [RFC XXXX] [RFC Editor: please replace with the RFC
      number of the current document]"

   Bit 1  "Sequence Number [RFC XXXX] [RFC Editor: please replace with
      the RFC number of the current document]"

   New registration requests MUST use the following template:

   Bit:  Desired bit to be allocated in the 8 bit Extension-Flags field
      of the DEX option.

   Description:  Brief description of the newly registered bit.

   Reference:  Reference to the document that defines the new bit.

5.  Performance Considerations

   The DEX option triggers IOAM data to be collected and/or exported
   packets to be exported to a receiving entity (or entities).  In some
   cases this may impact the receiving entity's performance, or the
   performance along the paths leading to it.

   Therefore, the performance impact of these exported packets is
   limited by taking two measures: at the encapsulating nodes, by
   selective DEX encapsulation (Section 3.1.1), and at the transit
   nodes, by limiting exporting rate (Section 3.1.2).  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.  Moreover, it is possible to load balance the
   exported data among multiple receiving entities, although the
   exporting method is not within the scope of this document.

   It should be noted that in some networks DEX data may be exported
   over an out-of-band network, in which a large volume of exported
   traffic does not compromise user traffic.  In this case an operator
   may choose to disable the exporting rate limiting.

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  Specifically, an attacker may try to use
   the functionality that is defined in this document to attack the
   network.

   An attacker may attempt to overload network devices by injecting
   synthetic packets that include the DEX option.  Similarly, an on-path
   attacker may maliciously incorporate the DEX option into transit
   packets, or maliciously remove it from packets in which it is
   incorporated.

   Forcing DEX, either in synthetic packets or in transit packets may
   overload the receiving entity (or entities).  Since this mechanism
   affects multiple devices along the network path, it potentially
   amplifies the effect on the network bandwidth and on the receiving
   entity's load.

   The amplification effect of DEX may be worse in wide area networks in
   which there are multiple IOAM domains.  For example, if DEX is used
   in IOAM domain 1 for exporting IOAM data to a receiving entity, then
   the exported packets of domain 1 can be forwarded through IOAM domain
   2, in which they are subject to DEX.  The exported packets of domain
   2 may in turn be forwarded through another IOAM domain (or through
   domain 1), and theoretically this recursive amplification may
   continue infinitely.

   In order to mitigate the attacks described above, the following
   requirements (Section 3) have been defined:

   o  Selective DEX (Section 3.1.1) is applied by IOAM encpsulating
      nodes in order to limit the potential impact of DEX attacks to a
      small fraction of the traffic.

   o  Rate limiting of exported traffic (Section 3.1.2) is applied by
      IOAM nodes in order to prevent overloading attacks and in order to
      significantly limit the scale of amplification attacks.

   o  IOAM encapsulating nodes are required to avoid pushing the DEX
      option into IOAM exported packets (Section 3.1.2), thus preventing
      some of the amplification and export loop scenarios.

   Although the exporting method is not within the scope of this
   document, any exporting method MUST secure the exported data from the
   IOAM node to the receiving entity.  Specifically, an IOAM node that
   performs DEX exporting MUST send the exported data to a pre-
   configured trusted receiving entity.  Furthermore, an IOAM node MUST

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   gain explicit consent to export data to a receiving entity before
   starting to send exported data.

   IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,
   thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their affect.  This
   is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of
   IOAM, as further discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors thank Martin Duke, Tommy Pauly, Greg Mirsky, and other
   members of the IPPM working group for many helpful comments.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
              for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-15 (work in
              progress), October 2021.

   [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>.

   [RFC5475]  Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
              Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
              Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.

   [RFC7014]  D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow
              Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014,
              September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7014>.

   [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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
              Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
              Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
              Lemon, "In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags", draft-
              ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-06 (work in progress), August 2021.

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
              Song, H., Mirsky, G., Filsfils, C., Abdelsalam, A., Zhou,
              T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee, "Postcard-based On-Path
              Flow Data Telemetry using Packet Marking", draft-song-
              ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-10 (work in progress), July
              2021.

   [I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]
              Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.
              Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",
              draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-05 (work in progress),
              July 2021.

   [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>.

Appendix A.  Hop Limit in Direct Exporting

   In order to help correlate and order the exported packets, it is
   possible to include the Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field in exported
   packets; if the IOAM-Trace-Type [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] has the
   Hop_Lim/Node_ID bit set, then exported packets include the Hop_Lim/
   Node_ID data field, which contains the TTL/Hop Limit value from a
   lower layer protocol.

   An alternative approach was considered during the design of this
   document, according to which a 1-octet Hop Count field would be
   included in the DEX header (presumably by claiming some space from
   the Flags field).  The Hop Limit would starts from 0 at the
   encapsulating node and be incremented by each IOAM transit node that
   supports the DEX option.  In this approach the Hop Count field value
   would also be included in the exported packet.

Authors' Addresses

   Haoyu Song
   Futurewei
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara  95050
   USA

   Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   Barak Gafni
   Nvidia
   350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
   Sunnyvale, CA  94085
   U.S.A.

   Email: gbarak@nvidia.com

   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei
   156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com

   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei
   156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com

   Frank Brockners
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
   DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN  40549
   Germany

   Email: fbrockne@cisco.com

   Shwetha Bhandari (editor)
   Thoughtspot
   3rd Floor, Indiqube Orion, 24th Main Rd, Garden Layout, HSR Layout
   Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 102
   India

   Email: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            IOAM Direct Exporting             October 2021

   Ramesh Sivakolundu
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   SAN JOSE, CA 95134
   U.S.A.

   Email: sramesh@cisco.com

   Tal Mizrahi (editor)
   Huawei
   8-2 Matam
   Haifa  3190501
   Israel

   Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com

Song, et al.             Expires April 16, 2022                [Page 14]