Approaches on Supporting IOAM in IPv6
draft-song-ioam-ipv6-support-00

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Haoyu Song  , Zhenbin Li  , Shuping Peng 
Last updated 2020-03-02
Replaced by draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-song-ioam-ipv6-support-00.txt

Abstract

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.

Authors

Haoyu Song (haoyu.song@futurewei.com)
Zhenbin Li (lizhenbin@huawei.com)
Shuping Peng (pengshuping@huawei.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)