Approaches on Supporting IOAM in IPv6
draft-song-ioam-ipv6-support-00
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Haoyu Song , Zhenbin Li , Shuping Peng | ||
| Last updated | 2020-03-02 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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 | (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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
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
Zhenbin Li
Shuping Peng
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)