Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6
Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini
Intended status: Informational TU Wien
Expires: January 1, 2019 N. Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
M. Ackermann
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
V. Hegde
Consultant
June 30, 2018
IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-06
Abstract
This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC
2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing.
It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to
include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimal IP packet,
and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, referred to as Type-P
for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo identifies that IPv4-IPv6
co-existence can challenge measurements within the scope of the IPPM
Framework. Example use cases include, but are not limited to
IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, or protocol encapsulation. IPv6 header
compression and use of IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
(6LoWPAN) are considered and excluded from the standard-formed packet
evaluation.
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.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
1. Introduction
The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a
framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has
stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental
metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition
[RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement
of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312].
The IPPM framework [RFC2330] recognized (in section 13) that many
aspects of IP packets can influence its processing during transfer
across the network.
In Section 15 of [RFC2330], the notion of a "standard-formed" packet
is defined. However, the definition was never updated to include
IPv6, as the original authors originally desired to do.
In particular, IPv6 Extension Headers and protocols which use IPv6
header compression are growing in use. This memo seeks to provide
the needed updates.
2. Scope
The purpose of this memo is to expand the coverage of IPPM metrics to
include IPv6, and to highlight additional aspects of test packets and
make them part of the IPPM performance metric framework.
The scope is to update key sections of [RFC2330], adding
considerations that will aid the development of new measurement
methodologies intended for today's IP networks. Specifically, this
memo expands the Type-P examples in section 13 of [RFC2330] and
expands the definition (in section 15 of [RFC2330]) of a standard-
formed packet to include IPv6 header aspects and other features.
Other topics in [RFC2330] which might be updated or augmented are
deferred to future work. This includes the topics of passive and
various forms of hybrid active/passive measurements.
3. Packets of Type-P
A fundamental property of many Internet metrics is that the measured
value of the metric depends on characteristics of the IP packet(s)
used to make the measurement. Potential influencing factors include
IP header fields and their values, but also higher-layer protocol
headers and their values. Consider an IP-connectivity metric: one
obtains different results depending on whether one is interested in
connectivity for packets destined for well-known TCP ports or
unreserved UDP ports, or those with invalid IPv4 checksums, or those
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
with TTL or Hop Limit of 16, for example. In some circumstances
these distinctions will result in special treatment of packets in
intermediate nodes and end systems (for example, if Diffserv
[RFC2474], ECN [RFC3168], Router Alert [RFC6398], Hop-by-hop
extensions [RFC7045], or Flow Labels [RFC6437] are used, or in the
presence of firewalls or RSVP reservations).
Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a
"packet of Type-P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly
defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially
defined (e.g., "with a payload of B octets"), or left generic. Thus
we may talk about generic IP-Type-P-connectivity or more specific IP-
port-HTTP-connectivity. Some metrics and methodologies may be
fruitfully defined using generic Type-P definitions which are then
made specific when performing actual measurements.
Whenever a metric's value depends on the type of the packets involved
in the metric, the metric's name will include either a specific type
or a phrase such as "Type-P". Thus we will not define an "IP-
connectivity" metric but instead an "IP-Type-P-connectivity" metric
and/or perhaps an "IP-port-HTTP-connectivity" metric. This naming
convention serves as an important reminder that one must be conscious
of the exact type of traffic being measured.
If the information constituting Type-P at the Source is found to have
changed at the Destination (or at a measurement point between the
Source and Destination, as in [RFC5644]), then the modified values
MUST be noted and reported with the results. Some modifications
occur according to the conditions encountered in transit (such as
congestion notification) or due to the requirements of segments of
the Source to Destination path. For example, the packet length will
change if IP headers are converted to the alternate version/address
family, or if optional Extension Headers are added or removed. Even
header fields like TTL/Hop Limit that typically change in transit may
be relevant to specific tests. For example Neighbor Discovery
Protocol (NDP) [RFC4861] packets are transmitted with Hop Limit value
set to 255, and the validity test specifies that the Hop Limit MUST
have a value of 255 at the receiver, too. So, while other tests may
intentionally exclude the TTL/Hop Limit value from their Type-P
definition, for this particular test the correct Hop Limit value is
of high relevance and MUST be part of the Type-P definition.
Local policies in intermediate nodes based on examination of IPv6
Extension Headers may affect measurement repeatability. If
intermediate nodes follow the recommendations of [RFC7045],
repeatability may be improved to some degree.
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
A closely related note: it would be very useful to know if a given
Internet component (like host, link, or path) treats equally a class
C of different types of packets. If so, then any one of those types
of packets can be used for subsequent measurement of the component.
This suggests we devise a metric or suite of metrics that attempt to
determine class C (a designation which has no relationship to address
assignments, of course).
Load balancing over parallel paths is one particular example where
such a class C would be more complex to determine in IPPM
measurements. Load balancers and routers often use flow identifiers,
computed as hashes of (specific parts of) the packet header, for
deciding among the available parallel paths a packet will traverse.
Packets with identical hashes are assigned to the same flow and
forwarded to the same resource in the load balancer's (or router's)
pool. The presence of a load balancer on the measurement path, as
well as the specific headers and fields that are used for the
forwarding decision, are not known when measuring the path as a
black-box. Potential assessment scenarios include the measurement of
one of the parallel paths, and the measurement of all available
parallel paths that the load balancer can use. Knowledge of a load
balancer's flow definition (alternatively: its class C specific
treatment in terms of header fields in scope of hash operations) is
therefore a prerequisite for repeatable measurements. A path may
have more than one stage of load balancing, adding to class C
definition complexity.
4. Standard-Formed Packets
Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP
packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard-
formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following
REQUIRED criteria:
+ It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific
criteria.
+ It is not an IP fragment.
+ The Source and Destination addresses correspond to the intended
Source and Destination, including Multicast Destination addresses.
+ If a transport header is present, it contains a valid checksum and
other valid fields.
For an IPv4 ([RFC0791] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the
following additional criteria are REQUIRED:
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
o The version field is 4
o The Internet Header Length (IHL) value is >= 5; the checksum is
correct.
o Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the
size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload.
o Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the
Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each
hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.
o It does not contain IP options unless explicitly noted.
For an IPv6 ([RFC8200] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the
following criteria are REQUIRED:
o The version field is 6.
o Its total length corresponds to the size of the IPv6 header (40
octets) plus the length of the payload as given in the IPv6
header.
o The payload length value for this packet (including Extension
Headers) conforms to the IPv6 specifications.
o Either the packet possesses sufficient Hop Limit to travel from
the Source to the Destination if the Hop Limit is decremented by
one at each hop, or it possesses the maximum Hop Limit of 255.
o Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers, or it
contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in
the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming
order (Next Header).
o All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found
in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters, specified in [IANA-6P].
Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard-
formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
(6LowPAN, [RFC4944]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]).
IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in
[RFC4944] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and
[RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations, proposes solutions
for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments. An adaptation
layer enables the transfer of IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU
smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that would be stored in
intermediate nodes, poses substantial challenges to measurements.
Likewise, ROHC operates statefully in compressing headers on
subpaths, storing state in intermediate hosts. The modification of
measurement packets' Type-P by ROHC and 6LowPAN, as well as
requirements with respect to the concept of standard-formed packets
for these two protocols requires substantial work. Because of these
reasons we consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope
for the standard-formed packet evaluation.
The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into
focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use
cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] in enterprise environments can benefit from
inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension
headers in hosts along the measurement path.
[RFC8250] endorses the use of IPv6 Destination Option for measurement
purposes, consistent with other approved IETF specifications.
The following additional considerations apply when IPv6 Extension
Headers are present:
o Extension Header inspection: Some intermediate nodes may inspect
Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit. In
exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a sub-
optimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or unrepeatable.
The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed, with a
corresponding Type-P.
o Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV
encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes
while in transit. The resulting packet may be standard-formed,
with a corresponding Type-P.
o Extension Header insertion or deletion: Although such behavior is
not endorsed by current standards, it is possible that Extension
Headers could be added to, or removed from the header chain. The
resulting packet may be standard-formed, with a corresponding
Type-P. This point simply encourages measurement system designers
to be prepared for the unexpected, and to notify users when such
events occur. There are issues with Extension Header insertion
and deletion of course, such as exceeding the path MTU due to
insertion, etc.
o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed
at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
Internet measurement, and REQUIRES a new Type-P to be reported
with the test results.
It is further REQUIRED that if a packet is described as having a
"length of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload
length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets,
including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in
[RFC2675] are not covered by the above length analysis, but if the
IPv6 Jumbogram Payload Hop-by-Hop Option Header is present, then a
packet with corresponding length MUST be considered standard-formed.
In practice, the path MTU will restrict the length of standard-formed
packets that can successfully traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6 (PMTUD, [RFC8201]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery (PLPMTUD, [RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent
fragmentation.
So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP connectivity metric
as "IP-type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP
Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly, "IP-type-
P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv Field set to 0", since standard-
formed is already implied by convention. Changing the contents of a
field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or Flow Label may
have a profound affect on packet handling during transit, but does
not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. Likewise, the
addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change
the handling of packets in transit hosts.
[RFC2330] defines the "minimal IP packet from A to B" as a particular
type of standard-formed packet often useful to consider. When
defining IP metrics no packet smaller or simpler than this can be
transmitted over a correctly operating IP network. However, the
concept of the minimal IP packet has not been employed (since typical
active measurement systems employ a transport layer and a payload)
and its practical use is limited. Therefore, this memo deprecates
the concept of the "minimal IP packet from A to B".
5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques
This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two
critical conventions of the IPPM Framework, namely packets of Type-P
and standard-formed packets. The need for co-existence of IPv4 and
IPv6 has originated transitioning standards like the Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation in [RFC6144] or IP/ICMP Translation Algorithms
in [RFC7915] and [RFC7757].
The definition and execution of measurements within the context of
the IPPM Framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms
are present along the measurement path. In particular use cases like
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header
compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's
Type-P along the path. All these changes MUST be reported. Example
consequences include, but are not limited to:
o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in
intermediate nodes. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header
compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement
packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement
path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P
modification. Measurements at observation points along the path
may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet.
o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have
unpredictable impact on latency measurement (in terms of the
amount of additional time added), and possibly other types of
measurements. It is not usually possible to control this impact
(as testers may not have any control of the underlying network or
middleboxes). There is a possibility that stateful NAT will lead
to unstable performance for a flow with specific Type-P, since
state needs to be created for the first packet of a flow, and
state may be lost later if the NAT runs out of resources.
However, this scenario does not invalidate the Type-P for testing
- for example the purpose of a test might be exactly to quantify
the NAT's impact on delay variation. The presence of NAT may mean
that the measured performance of Type-P will change between the
source and the destination. This can cause an issue when
attempting to correlate measurements conducted on segments of the
path that include or exclude the NAT. Thus, it is a factor to be
aware of when conducting measurements.
o Variable delay due to internal state. One side effect of changes
due to IPv4-IPv6 transitioning mechanisms is the variable delay
that intermediate nodes spend for header modifications. Similar
to NAT the allocation of internal state and establishment of
context within intermediate nodes may cause variable delays,
depending on the measurement stream pattern and position of a
packet within the stream. For example the first packet in a
stream will typically trigger allocation of internal state in an
intermediate IPv4-IPv6 transition host. Subsequent packets can
benefit from lower processing delay due to the existing internal
state. However, large inter-packet delays in the measurement
stream may result in the intermediate host deleting the associated
state and needing to re-establish it on arrival of another stream
packet. It is worth noting that this variable delay due to
internal state allocation in intermediate nodes can be an explicit
use case for measurements.
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
o Variable delay due to packet length. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or
header compression mechanisms modify the length of measurement
packets. The modification of the packet size may or may not
change the way how the measurement path treats the packets.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
live paths are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and [RFC5357].
When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those
whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to
potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques
which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user
traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer
the reader to the privacy considerations described in the Large Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework [RFC7594],
which covers active and passive techniques.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests of IANA.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Brian Carpenter for identifying the lack of IPv6
coverage in IPPM's Framework, and for listing additional
distinguishing factors for packets of Type-P. Both Brian and Fred
Baker discussed many of the interesting aspects of IPv6 with the co-
authors, leading to a more solid first draft: thank you both. Thanks
to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text. As we
completed our journey, Nevil Brownlee, Mike Heard, Spencer Dawkins,
Warren Kumari, and Suresh Krishnan all contributed useful
suggestions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[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>.
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095,
July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3095>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.
[RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for
Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6398] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, DOI 10.17487/RFC6398, October
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
[RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address
Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.
[RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
"IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.
[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>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
"Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-03 (work in progress), June 2018.
[IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January
2018.
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
Authors' Addresses
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Joachim Fabini
TU Wien
Gusshausstrasse 25/E389
Vienna 1040
Austria
Phone: +43 1 58801 38813
Fax: +43 1 58801 38898
Email: Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at
URI: http://www.tc.tuwien.ac.at/about-us/staff/joachim-fabini/
Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
Carmel Valley, CA 93924
USA
Email: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
Michael S. Ackermann
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Email: mackermann@bcbsm.com
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPPM IPv6 Update June 2018
Vinayak Hegde
Consultant
Brahma Sun City, Wadgaon-Sheri
Pune, Maharashtra 411014
INDIA
Phone: +91 9449834401
Email: vinayakh@gmail.com
URI: http://www.vinayakhegde.com
Morton, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 15]
