< draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-01.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02.txt >
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini
Intended status: Informational TU Wien Intended status: Informational TU Wien
Expires: September 7, 2017 N. Elkins Expires: April 13, 2018 N. Elkins
Inside Products, Inc. Inside Products, Inc.
M. Ackermann M. Ackermann
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
V. Hegde V. Hegde
Consultant Consultant
March 6, 2017 October 10, 2017
IPv6 Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-01 draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02
Abstract Abstract
This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC
2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing. 2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing.
It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to
include IPv6 packets and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimum standard-
formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets,
referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo
identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements
within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases include, within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases include,
but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol
encapsulation, or IPv6 header compression. encapsulation, IPv6 header compression, or use of IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN).
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2017.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 7 5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a
framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has
stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental
metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition
[RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement [RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement
of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312]. of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312].
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 27
o Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers, or it o Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers, or it
contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in
the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming
order (Next Header). order (Next Header).
o All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found o All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found
in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters, partly specified in [RFC7045]. Parameters, partly specified in [RFC7045].
Compressed IPv6 headers must be compliant with [RFC4494], as updated Two mechanisms must be addressed in the context of standard-formed
by [RFC6282], in order to be declared "standard-formed". packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN,
[RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]). IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in
[RFC4494] 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 IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU
smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of
IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that must be stored in
intermediate nodes, poses substantial challenges to measurements.
Likewise, ROHC operates stateful 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 of this
document.
The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into
focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. The following additional focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use
considerations apply when IPv6 Extension Headers are present: cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM in
enterprise environments or IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics
(PDM) Destination Option measurements [RFC8250] can benefit from
inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension
headers in hosts along the measurement path.
As a particular use case, hosts on the path may store sending and
intermediate timestamps into dedicated extension headers to support
measurements, monitoring, auditing, or reproducibility in critical
environments. [RFC8250] endorses the use and manipulation of IPv6
extension headers 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 o Extension Header inspection: Some intermediate nodes may inspect
Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit. In Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit. In
exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a sub- exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a sub-
optimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or unrepeatable. optimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or unrepeatable.
The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed, with a The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed, with a
corresponding Type-P. corresponding Type-P.
o Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV o Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV
encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes
skipping to change at page 7, line 11 skipping to change at page 7, line 42
o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed
at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in
Internet measurement, and requires a new Type-P to be reported. Internet measurement, and requires a new Type-P to be reported.
We further require that if a packet is described as having a "length We further require 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 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 octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets, including any
Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in [RFC2675] are not Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in [RFC2675] are not
covered by this length analysis. In practice, the path MTU will covered by this length analysis. In practice, the path MTU will
restrict the length of standard-formed packets that can successfully restrict the length of standard-formed packets that can successfully
traverse the path. traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD, [RFC1191] and
[RFC1981]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLMTUD,
[RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent fragmentation or ICMP error
messages as a result of IPv6 extension header manipulation.
So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP connectivity metric So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP connectivity metric
as "IP-type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP as "IP-type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP
Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly, "IP-type- Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly, "IP-type-
P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv Field set to 0", since standard- P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv Field set to 0", since standard-
formed is already implied by convention. Changing the contents of a formed is already implied by convention. Changing the contents of a
field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or Flow Label may field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or Flow Label may
have a profound affect on packet handling during transit, but does have a profound affect on packet handling during transit, but does
not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. Likewise, the
addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change
A particular type of standard-formed packet often useful to consider the handling of packets in transit hosts.
is the "minimal IP packet from A to B" - this is an IP packet with
the following properties:
+ It is standard-formed.
+ Its data payload is 0 octets.
+ It contains no options or Extension Headers.
(Note that we do not define its protocol field, as different values
may lead to different treatment by the network.)
When defining IP metrics we keep in mind that no packet smaller or [RFC2330] defines the "minimal IP packet from A to B" as a particular
simpler than this can be transmitted over a correctly operating IP type of standard-formed packet often useful to consider. When
network. 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 used in the meantime
and its practical use is limited. This is why this memo deprecates
the concept of the "minimal IP packet from A to B".
5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques 5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques
This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two
critical conventions of the IPPM Framework, namely packets of Type-P critical conventions of the IPPM Framework, namely packets of Type-P
and standard-formed packets. The need for co-existence of IPv4 and and standard-formed packets. The need for co-existence of IPv4 and
IPv6 has originated transitioning standards like the Framework for IPv6 has originated transitioning standards like the Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation in [RFC6144] or IP/ICMP Translation Algorithms IPv4/IPv6 Translation in [RFC6144] or IP/ICMP Translation Algorithms
in [RFC6145] and [RFC7757]. in [RFC6145] and [RFC7757].
skipping to change at page 9, line 50 skipping to change at page 10, line 27
Baker discussed many of the interesting aspects of IPv6 with the co- Baker discussed many of the interesting aspects of IPv6 with the co-
authors, leading to a more solid first draft: thank you both. Thanks authors, leading to a more solid first draft: thank you both. Thanks
to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text. to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999, RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000, BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.
[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 [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC4494] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., and J. Lee, "The AES-CMAC-96 [RFC4494] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., and J. Lee, "The AES-CMAC-96
Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 4494, Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 4494,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4494, June 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4494, June 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4494>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4494>.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>. <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, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.
[RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for [RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for
Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April
2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>. 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144, IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>. April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011, Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and [RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012, RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>. <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 [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
[RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address [RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address
Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757, Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.
[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 9.2. Informative References
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Al Morton Al Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South 200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ 07748 Middletown, NJ 07748
USA USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Phone: +1 732 420 1571
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
60 lines changed or deleted 120 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/