--- 1/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02.txt 2018-03-01 14:13:18.918988524 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-03.txt 2018-03-01 14:13:18.954989380 -0800 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ Network Working Group A. Morton Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini Intended status: Informational TU Wien -Expires: April 13, 2018 N. Elkins +Expires: September 2, 2018 N. Elkins Inside Products, Inc. M. Ackermann Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan V. Hegde Consultant - October 10, 2017 + March 1, 2018 IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework - draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02 + draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-03 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 minimum standard- formed 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 @@ -42,25 +42,25 @@ 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/. 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 April 13, 2018. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2018. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + 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 @@ -229,44 +229,44 @@ 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 ([RFC2460] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the + 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 Count to travel from - the Source to the Destination if the Hop Count is decremented by - one at each hop, or it possesses the maximum Hop Count of 255. + 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, partly specified in [RFC7045]. + Parameters, partly specified in [IANA-6P]. Two mechanisms must be addressed in the context of 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 @@ -318,24 +318,24 @@ o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in Internet measurement, and requires a new Type-P to be reported. 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 octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets, including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in [RFC2675] are not covered by this length analysis. In practice, the path MTU will restrict the length of standard-formed packets that can successfully - 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. + 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 (or ICMP error + messages) as a result of IPv6 extension header manipulation. 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 @@ -349,21 +349,21 @@ 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 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 [RFC6145] and [RFC7757]. + 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 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. Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to: o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in @@ -411,21 +411,21 @@ internal state allocation in intermediate nodes can be an explicit use case for measurements. 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. Points that are worthwhile discussing further: handling of large packets in IPv6 (including fragment extension headers, PMTUD, - PLMTUD), extent of coverage for 6LO and IPv6 Header Compression, and + PLPMTUD), extent of coverage for 6LO and IPv6 Header Compression, and the continued need to define a "minimal standard-formed packet". . 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 @@ -451,42 +451,30 @@ to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, . - [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, - DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, - . - - [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery - for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August - 1996, . - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, . - [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 - (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, - December 1998, . - [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999, . [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000, . [RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., @@ -532,24 +520,20 @@ . [RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April 2010, . [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144, April 2011, . - [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation - Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011, - . - [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, . [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011, . @@ -572,27 +556,47 @@ [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, . [RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757, DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016, . + [RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont, + "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016, + . + + [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 + (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, + . + + [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, + . + [RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017, . 9.2. Informative References + [IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) + Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority + https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January + 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, . Authors' Addresses Al Morton AT&T Labs