draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05.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: October 7, 2018 N. Elkins		Expires: November 25, 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
	April 5, 2018		May 24, 2018
	IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework		IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework
	draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04		draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05
	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, deprecates the definition of minimum standard-		include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimum standard-
	formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets,		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, or protocol
	encapsulation, IPv6 header compression, or use of IPv6 over Low-Power		encapsulation. IPv6 header compression and use of IPv6 over Low-
	Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN).		Power Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN) are considered and excluded
			from the standard-formed packet evaluation.
	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 [RFC2119] and updated
			by [RFC8174].
	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 https://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 October 7, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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
	(https://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.
			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		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	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 . . . . 8		5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 8
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	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 3, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶
	value of the metric depends on characteristics of the IP packet(s)		value of the metric depends on characteristics of the IP packet(s)
	used to make the measurement. Potential influencing factors include		used to make the measurement. Potential influencing factors include
	IP header fields and their values, but also higher-layer protocol		IP header fields and their values, but also higher-layer protocol
	headers and their values. Consider an IP-connectivity metric: one		headers and their values. Consider an IP-connectivity metric: one
	obtains different results depending on whether one is interested in		obtains different results depending on whether one is interested in
	connectivity for packets destined for well-known TCP ports or		connectivity for packets destined for well-known TCP ports or
	unreserved UDP ports, or those with invalid IPv4 checksums, or those		unreserved UDP ports, or those with invalid IPv4 checksums, or those
	with TTL or Hop Limit of 16, for example. In some circumstances		with TTL or Hop Limit of 16, for example. In some circumstances
	these distinctions will result in special treatment of packets in		these distinctions will result in special treatment of packets in
	intermediate nodes and end systems (for example, if Diffserv		intermediate nodes and end systems (for example, if Diffserv
	[RFC2780], ECN [RFC3168], Router Alert, Hop-by-hop extensions		[RFC2474], ECN [RFC3168], Router Alert, Hop-by-hop extensions
	[RFC7045], or Flow Labels [RFC6437] are used, or in the presence of		[RFC7045], or Flow Labels [RFC6437] are used, or in the presence of
	firewalls or RSVP reservations).		firewalls or RSVP reservations).
	Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a		Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a
	"packet of Type-P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly		"packet of Type-P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly
	defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially		defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially
	defined (e.g., "with a payload of B octets"), or left generic. Thus		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-		we may talk about generic IP-Type-P-connectivity or more specific IP-
	port-HTTP-connectivity. Some metrics and methodologies may be		port-HTTP-connectivity. Some metrics and methodologies may be
	fruitfully defined using generic Type-P definitions which are then		fruitfully defined using generic Type-P definitions which are then
	skipping to change at page 5, line 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 35 ¶
	(alternatively: its class C specific treatment in terms of header		(alternatively: its class C specific treatment in terms of header
	fields in scope of hash operations) is therefore a prerequisite for		fields in scope of hash operations) is therefore a prerequisite for
	repeatable measurements. A path may have more than one stage of load		repeatable measurements. A path may have more than one stage of load
	balancing, adding to class C definition complexity.		balancing, adding to class C definition complexity.
	4. Standard-Formed Packets		4. Standard-Formed Packets
	Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP		Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP
	packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard-		packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard-
	formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following		formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following
	criteria:		REQUIRED criteria:
	+ It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific		+ It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific
	criteria.		criteria.
	+ It is not an IP fragment.		+ It is not an IP fragment.
	+ The Source and Destination addresses correspond to the intended		+ The Source and Destination addresses correspond to the intended
	Source and Destination, including Multicast Destination addresses.		Source and Destination, including Multicast Destination addresses.
	+ If a transport header is present, it contains a valid checksum and		+ If a transport header is present, it contains a valid checksum and
	other valid fields.		other valid fields.
	For an IPv4 ( [RFC0791] and updates) packet to be standard-formed,		For an IPv4 ([RFC0791] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the
	the following additional criteria are REQUIRED:		following additional criteria are REQUIRED:
	o The version field is 4		o The version field is 4
	o The Internet Header Length (IHL) value is >= 5; the checksum is		o The Internet Header Length (IHL) value is >= 5; the checksum is
	correct.		correct.
	o Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the		o Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the
	size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload.		size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload.
	o Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the		o Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the
	Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each		Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each
	hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.		hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 48 ¶
	in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)		in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
	Parameters, partly specified in [IANA-6P].		Parameters, partly specified in [IANA-6P].
	Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard-		Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard-
	formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks		formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
	(6LowPAN, [RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]).		(6LowPAN, [RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]).
	IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in		IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in
	[RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and		[RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and
	[RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations proposes solutions		[RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations proposes solutions
	for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments. An adaptation		for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments. An adaptation
	layer enables the transfer IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU		layer enables the transfer of IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU
	smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of		smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of
	IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that would be stored in		IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that would be stored in
	intermediate nodes, poses substantial challenges to measurements.		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		Likewise, ROHC operates statefully in compressing headers on
	packets' Type-P by ROHC and 6LowPAN, as well as requirements with		subpaths, storing state in intermediate hosts. The modification of
	respect to the concept of standard-formed packets for these two		measurement packets' Type-P by ROHC and 6LowPAN, as well as
	protocols requires substantial work. Because of these reasons we		requirements with respect to the concept of standard-formed packets
	consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope of this		for these two protocols requires substantial work. Because of these
	document.		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		The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into
	focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use		focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use
	cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM in		cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM
	enterprise environments or IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] in enterprise environments can benefit from
	(PDM) Destination Option measurements [RFC8250] can benefit from
	inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension		inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension
	headers in hosts along the measurement path.		headers in hosts along the measurement path.
	As a particular use case, hosts on the path may store sending and		[RFC8250] endorses the use of IPv6 extension headers for measurement
	intermediate timestamps into dedicated extension headers to support		purposes, consistent with other approved IETF specifications.
	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		The following additional considerations apply when IPv6 Extension
	Headers are present:		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
	while in transit. The resulting packet may be standard-formed,		while in transit. The resulting packet may be standard-formed,
	with a corresponding Type-P.		with a corresponding Type-P.
	o Extension Header insertion or deletion: It is possible that		o Extension Header insertion or deletion: Although such behavior is
	Extension Headers could be added to, or removed from the header		not endorsed by current standards, it is possible that Extension
	chain. The resulting packet may be standard-formed, with a		Headers could be added to, or removed from the header chain. The
	corresponding Type-P.		resulting packet may be standard-formed, with a corresponding
			Type-P.
	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
			with the test results.
	It is further REQUIRED that if a packet is described as having a		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 of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload
	length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets,		length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets,
	including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in		including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in
	[RFC2675] are not covered by the above length analysis, but if the		[RFC2675] are not covered by the above length analysis, but if the
	IPv6 Jumbogram Payload Hop-by-Hop Option Header is present, then a		IPv6 Jumbogram Payload Hop-by-Hop Option Header is present, then a
	packet with corresponding length MUST be considered standard-formed.		packet with corresponding length MUST be considered standard-formed.
	In practice, the path MTU will restrict the length of standard-formed		In practice, the path MTU will restrict the length of standard-formed
	packets that can successfully traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery		packets that can successfully traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery
	for IP version 6 (PMTUD, [RFC8201]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU		for IP version 6 (PMTUD, [RFC8201]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU
	Discovery (PLPMTUD, [RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent		Discovery (PLPMTUD, [RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent
	fragmentation (or ICMP error messages) as a result of IPv6 extension		fragmentation.
	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. Likewise, the		not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. Likewise, the
	addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change		addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change
	skipping to change at page 8, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 52 ¶
	The definition and execution of measurements within the context of		The definition and execution of measurements within the context of
	the IPPM Framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms		the IPPM Framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms
	are present along the measurement path. In particular use cases like		are present along the measurement path. In particular use cases like
	IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header		IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header
	compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's		compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's
	Type-P along the path. All these changes MUST be reported.		Type-P along the path. All these changes MUST be reported.
	Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to:		Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to:
	o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in		o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in
	intermediate nodes. As noted in Section 4 for IPv6 extension		intermediate nodes. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header
	header manipulation, NAT, IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header
	compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement		compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement
	packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement		packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement
	path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P		path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P
	modification. Measurements at observation points along the path		modification. Measurements at observation points along the path
	may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet.		may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet.
	o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have		o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have
	unpredictable impact on latency measurement (in terms of the		unpredictable impact on latency measurement (in terms of the
	amount of additional time added), and possibly other types of		amount of additional time added), and possibly other types of
	measurements. It is not usually possible to control this impact		measurements. It is not usually possible to control this impact
	skipping to change at page 10, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 5 ¶
	[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,
	<https://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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.		<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",		[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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
	[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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.
	[RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,		[RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
	Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,		Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
	K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,		K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
	Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header		Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
	Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,		Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
	ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095,		ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095,
	July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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",
	skipping to change at page 12, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 10 ¶
	[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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.
	[RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,		[RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
	"IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,		"IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.		<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		[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
	(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,		(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
	[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,		[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
	"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,		"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
	[RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6		[RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
	Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination		Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
	Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,		Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.
	9.2. Informative References		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-02 (work in progress), March 2018.
	[IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)		[IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
	Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority		Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
	https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January		https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January
	2018.		2018.
	[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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
End of changes. 27 change blocks.
	47 lines changed or deleted		69 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/