Skip to main content

In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting
RFC 9326

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (November 2022) IPR
Authors Haoyu Song , Barak Gafni , Frank Brockners , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi
Last updated 2022-11-15
Replaces draft-ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Tommy Pauly
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2022-03-01
IESG IESG state RFC 9326 (Proposed Standard)
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Martin Duke
Send notices to tpauly@apple.com
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC 9326


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           H. Song
Request for Comments: 9326                                     Futurewei
Category: Standards Track                                       B. Gafni
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Nvidia
                                                            F. Brockners
                                                                   Cisco
                                                             S. Bhandari
                                                             Thoughtspot
                                                              T. Mizrahi
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           November 2022

   In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Direct
                               Exporting

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 (denoted IOAM-Option-Type) called the "IOAM
   Direct Export (DEX) Option-Type".  This Option-Type 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Conventions
     2.1.  Requirements Language
     2.2.  Terminology
   3.  The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM-Option-Type
     3.1.  Overview
       3.1.1.  DEX Packet Selection
       3.1.2.  Responding to the DEX Trigger
     3.2.  The DEX Option-Type Format
   4.  IANA Considerations
     4.1.  IOAM Type
     4.2.  IOAM DEX Flags
     4.3.  IOAM DEX Extension-Flags
   5.  Performance Considerations
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Notes about the History of This Document
   Acknowledgments
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   IOAM [RFC9197] is used for monitoring traffic in the network and for
   incorporating IOAM data fields (denoted IOAM-Data-Fields) into in-
   flight data packets.

   IOAM makes use of four possible IOAM-Option-Types, defined in
   [RFC9197]: Pre-allocated Trace, Incremental Trace, Proof of Transit
   (POT), and Edge-to-Edge.

   This document defines a new IOAM-Option-Type called the "IOAM Direct
   Export (DEX) Option-Type".  This Option-Type 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".  In this context, a "receiving entity" is an entity that
   resides within the IOAM domain such as a collector, analyzer,
   controller, decapsulating node, or 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 a
   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 Operations, Administration, and
   Maintenance (OAM) data.  The functionality of this local processing
   is not within the scope of this document.

2.  Conventions

2.1.  Requirements 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 [RFC6291]

   DEX:    Direct Exporting

3.  The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM-Option-Type

3.1.  Overview

   The DEX Option-Type is used as a trigger for collecting IOAM data
   locally or exporting it to a receiving entity (or entities).
   Specifically, the DEX Option-Type can be used as a trigger for
   collecting IOAM data by an IOAM node and locally aggregating it;
   thus, this aggregated data can be periodically pushed to a receiving
   entity or pulled by a receiving entity on-demand.

   This Option-Type is incorporated into data packets by an IOAM
   encapsulating node and removed by an IOAM decapsulating node, as
   illustrated in Figure 1.  The Option-Type can be read, but not
   modified, by transit nodes.  Note that the terms "IOAM encapsulating
   node", "IOAM decapsulating node", and "IOAM transit node" are as
   defined in [RFC9197].

                                      ^
                                      |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-Type 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:

   *  An IOAM encapsulating node configured to incorporate the DEX
      Option-Type encapsulates the packets (or possibly a subset of the
      packets) it forwards with the DEX Option-Type 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.  An IOAM encapsulating node can generate probe packets
      that incorporate the DEX Option-Type.  These probe packets can be
      generated periodically or on-demand (for example, triggered by the
      management plane).  The specification of such probe packets is
      outside the scope of this document.

   *  A transit node that processes a packet with the DEX Option-Type
      MAY export and/or collect the requested IOAM data.

   *  An IOAM decapsulating node that processes a packet with the DEX
      Option-Type MAY export and/or collect the requested IOAM data and
      MUST decapsulate the IOAM header.

   As in [RFC9197], the DEX Option-Type 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.  Moreover, IOAM nodes respond
   to the DEX trigger by exporting and/or collecting IOAM data either
   for all traversing packets that carry the DEX Option-Type or
   selectively only for a subset of these packets, as further discussed
   in Section 3.1.2.

3.1.1.  DEX Packet Selection

   If an IOAM encapsulating node incorporates the DEX Option-Type 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-Type MUST support the ability to incorporate the DEX Option-
   Type selectively into a subset of the packets that are forwarded by
   the IOAM encapsulating node.

   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-Type 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-Type, 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 (i.e., N is much greater
   than M).  The rationale is that a packet that includes a DEX Option-
   Type 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-Type specifies which IOAM-Data-Fields should be
   exported and/or collected, as specified in Section 3.2.  As mentioned
   above, the data can be locally collected, aggregated, and/or exported
   to a receiving entity 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 current document.
   For example, the export format can be based on [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.

   IOAM nodes SHOULD NOT be configured to export packets 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-Type 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 [RFC9197]); specifically, nodes
   that do not support the DEX Option-Type ignore it.  As per [RFC9197],
   note that a decapsulating node removes the IOAM encapsulation and all
   its IOAM-Option-Types.  Specifically, this applies to the case where
   one of these options is a (possibly unknown) DEX Option-Type.  The
   ability to skip over a (possibly unknown) DEX Option-Type in the
   parsing or in the decapsulation procedure is dependent on the
   specific encapsulation, which is outside the scope of this document.
   For example, when IOAM is encapsulated in IPv6 [IOAM-IPV6-OPTIONS],
   the DEX Option-Type is incorporated either in a Hop-by-Hop options
   header or in a Destination options header; thus, it can be skipped
   using the length field in the options header.

3.2.  The DEX Option-Type Format

   The format of the DEX Option-Type is depicted in Figure 2.  The
   length of the DEX Option-Type is at least 8 octets.  The DEX Option-
   Type 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 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-Type.  Defining a
   new optional field requires an allocation of a corresponding flag in
   the Extension-Flags field, as specified in Section 4.2.

       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-Type Format

   Namespace-ID:
      A 16-bit identifier of the IOAM namespace, as defined in
      [RFC9197].

   Flags:
      An 8-bit field, comprised of 8 1-bit subfields.  Flags are
      allocated by IANA, as defined in Section 4.2.

   Extension-Flags:
      An 8-bit field, comprised of 8 1-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-Type with an unknown flag set to 1 MUST
      ignore the corresponding optional field.

   IOAM-Trace-Type:
      A 24-bit identifier that specifies which IOAM-Data-Fields should
      be exported.  The format of this field is as defined in [RFC9197].
      Specifically, the bit that corresponds to the Checksum Complement
      IOAM-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 MUST 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 order of the
      respective bits, starting from the most significant bit, that are
      enabled in the Extension-Flags field.  Each optional field is 4
      octets long.

      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 used to correlate the
         exported data of the same flow from multiple nodes and from
         multiple packets.  Flow ID values are expected to be allocated
         in a way that avoids collisions.  For example, random
         assignment of Flow ID values can be subject to collisions,
         while centralized allocation can avoid this problem.  The
         specification of the Flow ID allocation method is not within
         the scope of this document.

      Sequence Number:
         An optional 32-bit sequence number starting from 0 and
         incremented by 1 for each packet from the same flow at the
         encapsulating node that includes the DEX option.  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 Option-Type" registry is defined in Section 7.1 of
   [RFC9197].  IANA has allocated the following code point from the
   "IOAM Option-Type" registry as follows:

   Code Point:  4

   Name  IOAM Direct Export (DEX) Option-Type

   Description:  Direct exporting

   Reference:  This document

4.2.  IOAM DEX Flags

   IANA has created the "IOAM DEX Flags" registry.  This registry
   includes 8 flag bits.  Allocation is based on the "IETF Review"
   procedure 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-Type.

   Description:  Brief description of the newly registered bit.

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

4.3.  IOAM DEX Extension-Flags

   IANA has created the "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 "IETF Review" procedure defined in [RFC8126].

   Bit 0:  "Flow ID [RFC9326]"

   Bit 1:  "Sequence Number [RFC9326]"

   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-Type.

   Description:  Brief description of the newly registered bit.

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

5.  Performance Considerations

   The DEX Option-Type 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.

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
   [RFC9197].  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-Type.  Similarly, an
   on-path attacker may maliciously incorporate the DEX Option-Type 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 IOAM nodes and/or the receiving entity (or entities).
   Since this mechanism affects multiple devices along the network path,
   it potentially amplifies the effect on the network bandwidth, the
   storage of the devices that collect the data, and 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 IOAM-Domain 1 can be forwarded through IOAM-
   Domain 2, in which they are subject to DEX.  In turn, the exported
   packets of IOAM-Domain 2 may be forwarded through another IOAM domain
   (or through IOAM-Domain 1); theoretically, this recursive
   amplification may continue infinitely.

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

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

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

   *  IOAM encapsulating nodes are required to avoid pushing the DEX
      Option-Type 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 in order to protect the
   confidentiality and guarantee the integrity of the exported data.
   Specifically, an IOAM node that performs DEX exporting MUST send the
   exported data to a pre-configured trusted receiving entity that is in
   the same IOAM-Domain as the exporting IOAM node.  Furthermore, an
   IOAM node MUST gain explicit consent to export data to a receiving
   entity before starting to send exported data.

   An attacker may keep track of the information sent in DEX headers as
   a means of reconnaissance.  This form of recon can be mitigated to
   some extent by careful allocation of the Flow ID and Sequence Number
   space in a way that does not compromise privacy aspects, such as
   customer identities.

   The integrity of the DEX Option-Type can be protected through a
   mechanism of the encapsulating protocol.  While [IOAM-DATA-INTEGRITY]
   introduces an integrity protection mechanism that protects the
   integrity of IOAM-Data-Fields, the DEX Option-Type does not include
   IOAM-Data-Fields; therefore, these integrity protection mechanisms
   are not applicable to the DEX Option-Type.  As discussed in the
   threat analysis of [IOAM-DATA-INTEGRITY], injection or modification
   of IOAM-Option-Type headers are threats that are not addressed in
   IOAM.

   IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,
   thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their effect.  This
   is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of
   IOAM, as further discussed in [RFC9197].

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9197]  Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
              Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
              and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
              May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [IOAM-DATA-INTEGRITY]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Mizrahi, T., and J. Iurman,
              "Integrity of In-situ OAM Data Fields", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-integrity-02, 5
              July 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              ietf-ippm-ioam-data-integrity-02>.

   [IOAM-IPV6-OPTIONS]
              Bhandari, S. and F. Brockners, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              ipv6-options-09, 11 October 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
              ioam-ipv6-options-09>.

   [IOAM-RAWEXPORT]
              Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.
              Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-
              rawexport-06, 21 February 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spiegel-ippm-
              ioam-rawexport-06>.

   [POSTCARD-BASED-TELEMETRY]
              Song, H., Mirsky, G., Filsfils, C., Abdelsalam, A., Zhou,
              T., Li, Z., Graf, T., Mishra, G. S., Shin, J., and K. Lee,
              "Marking-based Direct Export for On-path Telemetry", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-ippm-postcard-
              based-telemetry-14, 7 September 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-ippm-
              postcard-based-telemetry-14>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6291]  Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
              D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
              Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9322]  Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Gafni, B., and
              M. Spiegel, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
              Maintanence (IOAM) Loopback and Active Flags", RFC 9322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9322, November 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9322>.

Appendix A.  Notes about the History of This Document

   This document evolved from combining some of the concepts of PBT-I
   from [POSTCARD-BASED-TELEMETRY] with immediate exporting from early
   versions of [RFC9322].

   In order to help correlate and order the exported packets, it is
   possible to include the Hop_Lim/Node_ID IOAM-Data-Field in exported
   packets.  If the IOAM-Trace-Type [RFC9197] has the Hop_Lim/Node_ID
   bit set, then exported packets include the Hop_Lim/Node_ID IOAM-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 start from 0 at the
   encapsulating node and be incremented by each IOAM transit node that
   supports the DEX Option-Type.  In this approach, the Hop Count field
   value would also be included in the exported packet.

Acknowledgments

   The authors thank Martin Duke, Tommy Pauly, Meral Shirazipour, Colin
   Perkins, Stephen Farrell, Linda Dunbar, Justin Iurman, Greg Mirsky,
   and other members of the IPPM working group for many helpful
   comments.

Contributors

   The Editors would like to recognize the contributions of the
   following individuals to this document.

   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

   Ramesh Sivakolundu
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States of America
   Email: sramesh@cisco.com

Authors' Addresses

   Haoyu Song
   Futurewei
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara,  95050
   United States of America
   Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com

   Barak Gafni
   Nvidia
   Suite 100
   350 Oakmead Parkway
   Sunnyvale, CA 94085
   United States of America
   Email: gbarak@nvidia.com

   Frank Brockners
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Hansaallee 249
   40549 Duesseldorf
   Germany
   Email: fbrockne@cisco.com

   Shwetha Bhandari
   Thoughtspot
   3rd Floor, Indiqube Orion, Garden Layout, HSR Layout
   24th Main Rd
   Bangalore 560 102
   Karnataka
   India
   Email: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com

   Tal Mizrahi
   Huawei
   8-2 Matam
   Haifa 3190501
   Israel
   Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com