Approaches on Supporting IOAM in IPv6
draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support-02
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Haoyu Song , Zhenbin Li , Shuping Peng , Jim Guichard | ||
| Last updated | 2021-07-08 (Latest revision 2021-01-04) | ||
| Replaces | draft-song-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 | 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
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 the extension header location in the IPv6 packets, the proposal creates practical challenges for implementation, especially when other extension headers, such as a 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 hope to foster standard convergence and industry adoption.
Authors
Haoyu Song
Zhenbin Li
Shuping Peng
Jim Guichard
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)