Skip to main content

Approaches on Supporting IOAM in IPv6

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)
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:


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.


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.)