draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-06.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-07.txt 
IPPM T. Mizrahi IPPM T. Mizrahi
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners
Expires: March 1, 2022 Cisco Expires: April 16, 2022 Cisco
S. Bhandari, Ed. S. Bhandari, Ed.
Thoughtspot Thoughtspot
R. Sivakolundu R. Sivakolundu
C. Pignataro C. Pignataro
Cisco Cisco
A. Kfir A. Kfir
B. Gafni B. Gafni
Nvidia Nvidia
M. Spiegel M. Spiegel
Barefoot Networks Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
J. Lemon J. Lemon
Broadcom Broadcom
August 28, 2021 October 13, 2021
In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-06 draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-07
Abstract Abstract
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) collects
operational and telemetry information in packets while they traverse operational and telemetry information in packets while they traverse
a path between two points in the network. This document defines two a path between two points in the network. This document defines two
new flags in the IOAM Trace Option headers, specifically the the new flags in the IOAM Trace Option headers, specifically the Loopback
Loopback and Active flags. and Active flags.
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 March 1, 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. New IOAM Trace Option Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. New IOAM Trace Option Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Loopback in IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Loopback in IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Loopback: Encapsulating Node Functionality . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Loopback: Encapsulating Node Functionality . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Loopback Packet Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1.1. Loopback Packet Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Receiving and Processing Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Receiving and Processing Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Loopback on the Return Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Loopback on the Return Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Terminating a Looped Back Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Terminating a Looped Back Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Active Measurement with IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Active Measurement with IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
IOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is used for monitoring traffic in the IOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is used for monitoring traffic in the
network by incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data network by incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data
packets. packets.
IOAM data may be represented in one of four possible IOAM options: IOAM data may be represented in one of four possible IOAM options:
Pre-allocated Trace Option, Incremental Trace Option, Proof of Pre-allocated Trace Option, Incremental Trace Option, Proof of
Transit (POT) Option, and Edge-to-Edge Option. This document defines Transit (POT) Option, and Edge-to-Edge Option. This document defines
two new flags in the Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace options: the two new flags in the Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace options: the
Loopback and Active flags. Loopback and Active flags.
The Loopback flag is used to request that each transit device along
the path loops back a truncated copy of the data packet to the
sender. The Active flag indicates that a packet is used for active
measurement. The term active measurement in the context of this
document is as defined in [RFC7799].
2. Conventions 2. Conventions
2.1. Requirements Language 2.1. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 49
Bit 2 "Active" (A-bit). When set, the Active flag indicates that a Bit 2 "Active" (A-bit). When set, the Active flag indicates that a
packet is an active measurement packet rather than a data packet, packet is an active measurement packet rather than a data packet,
where "active" is used in the sense defined in [RFC7799]. The where "active" is used in the sense defined in [RFC7799]. The
packet may be an IOAM probe packet, or a replicated data packet packet may be an IOAM probe packet, or a replicated data packet
(the second and third use cases of Section 5). (the second and third use cases of Section 5).
4. Loopback in IOAM 4. Loopback in IOAM
The Loopback flag is used to request that each transit device along The Loopback flag is used to request that each transit device along
the path loops back a copy of the data packet to the sender. the path loops back a truncated copy of the data packet to the
Loopback allows an IOAM encapsulating node to trace the path to a sender. Loopback allows an IOAM encapsulating node to trace the path
given destination, and to receive per-hop data about both the forward to a given destination, and to receive per-hop data about both the
and the return path. Loopback is intended to provide an accelerated forward and the return path. Loopback is intended to provide an
alternative to Traceroute, that allows the encapsulating node to accelerated alternative to Traceroute, that allows the encapsulating
receive responses from multiple transit nodes along the path in less node to receive responses from multiple transit nodes along the path
then one round-trip-time, and by sending a single packet. in less then one round-trip-time, and by sending a single packet.
As illustrated in Figure 1, an IOAM encapsulating node can push an As illustrated in Figure 1, an IOAM encapsulating node can push an
IOAM encapsulation that includes the Loopback flag onto some or all IOAM encapsulation that includes the Loopback flag onto some or all
of the packets it forwards. The IOAM transit node and the of the packets it forwards. The IOAM transit node and the
decapsulating node both creates copies of the packet and loop them decapsulating node both creates copies of the packet and loop them
back to the encapsulating node. The decapsulating node also back to the encapsulating node. The decapsulating node also
terminates the IOAM encapsulation, and then forwards the packet terminates the IOAM encapsulation, and then forwards the packet
towards the destination. The two IOAM looped back copies are towards the destination. The two IOAM looped back copies are
terminated by the encapsulating node. terminated by the encapsulating node.
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 14
either proactively or on-demand, i.e., when a failure is detected. either proactively or on-demand, i.e., when a failure is detected.
The encapsulating node also needs to ensure that sufficient space is The encapsulating node also needs to ensure that sufficient space is
available in the IOAM header for loopback operation, which includes available in the IOAM header for loopback operation, which includes
transit nodes adding trace data on the original path and then again transit nodes adding trace data on the original path and then again
on the return path. on the return path.
An IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set MUST have the An IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set MUST have the
value '1' in the most significant bit of IOAM-Trace-Type, and '0' in value '1' in the most significant bit of IOAM-Trace-Type, and '0' in
the rest of the bits of IOAM-Trace-Type. Thus, every transit node the rest of the bits of IOAM-Trace-Type. Thus, every transit node
that processes this trace option only adds a single data field, which that processes this trace option only adds a single data field, which
is the Hop_Lim and node_id data field. The reason for allowing a is the Hop_Lim and node_id data field. A transit node that receives
single data field per hop is to minimize the impact of amplification a packet with an IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set and
attacks. the IOAM-Trace-Type is not equal to '1' in the most significant bit
and '0' in the rest of the bits, MUST NOT loop back a copy of the
packet. The reason for allowing a single data field per hop is to
minimize the impact of amplification attacks.
IOAM encapsulating nodes MUST NOT push an IOAM encapsulation with the IOAM encapsulating nodes MUST NOT push an IOAM encapsulation with the
Loopback flag onto data packets that already include an IOAM Loopback flag onto data packets that already include an IOAM
encapsulation. This requirement is intended to prevent IOAM Loopback encapsulation. This requirement is intended to prevent IOAM Loopback
nesting, where looped back packets may be subject to loopback in a nesting, where looped back packets may be subject to loopback in a
nested IOAM domain. nested IOAM domain.
4.1.1. Loopback Packet Selection 4.1.1. Loopback Packet Selection
If an IOAM encapsulating node incorporates the Loopback flag into all If an IOAM encapsulating node incorporates the Loopback flag into all
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 6, line 11
network operators. If there is an upper bound, M, on the number of network operators. If there is an upper bound, M, on the number of
IOAM transit nodes in any path in the network, then it is recommended IOAM transit nodes in any path in the network, then it is recommended
to use an N such that N >> M. The rationale is that a packet that to use an N such that N >> M. The rationale is that a packet that
includes the Loopback flag triggers a looped back packet from each includes the Loopback flag triggers a looped back packet from each
IOAM transit node along the path for a total of M looped back IOAM transit node along the path for a total of M looped back
packets. Thus, if N >> M then the number of looped back packets is packets. Thus, if N >> M then the number of looped back packets is
significantly lower than the number of data packets forwarded by the significantly lower than the number of data packets forwarded by the
IOAM encapsulating node. If there is no prior knowledge about the IOAM encapsulating node. If there is no prior knowledge about the
network topology or size, it is recommended to use N>100. network topology or size, it is recommended to use N>100.
The loopback flag MUST NOT be set if it is not guaranteed that there
is a return path from each of the IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating
nodes, or if the encapsulating node's identity is not available in
the encapsulation header.
4.2. Receiving and Processing Loopback 4.2. Receiving and Processing Loopback
A Loopback flag that is set indicates to the transit nodes processing A Loopback flag that is set indicates to the transit nodes processing
this option that they are to create a copy of the received packet and this option that they are to create a copy of the received packet and
send the copy back to the source of the packet. In this context the send the copy back to the source of the packet. In this context the
source is the IOAM encapsulating node, and it is assumed that the source is the IOAM encapsulating node, and it is assumed that the
source address is available in the encapsulation header. Thus, the source address is available in the encapsulation header. Thus, the
source address of the original packet is used as the destination source address of the original packet is used as the destination
address in the copied packet. The address of the node performing the address in the copied packet. If the address of the encapsulating
copy operation is used as the source address. The IOAM transit node node is not available in the encapsulation header, then the transit/
pushes the required data field *after* creating the copy of the decapsulating node does not loop back a copy of the original packet.
packet, in order to allow any egress-dependent information to be set The address of the node performing the copy operation is used as the
based on the egress of the copy rather than the original packet. The source address. The IOAM transit node pushes the required data field
copy is also truncated, i.e., any payload that resides after the IOAM *after* creating the copy of the packet, in order to allow any
option(s) is removed before transmitting the looped back packet back egress-dependent information to be set based on the egress of the
towards the encapsulating node. The original packet continues copy rather than the original packet. The copy is also truncated,
towards its destination. The L-bit MUST be cleared in the copy of i.e., any payload that resides after the IOAM option(s) is removed
the packet that a node sends back towards the source. before transmitting the looped back packet back towards the
encapsulating node. The original packet continues towards its
destination. The L-bit MUST be cleared in the copy of the packet
that a node sends back towards the source.
An IOAM node that supports the reception and processing of the An IOAM node that supports the reception and processing of the
Loopback flag MUST support the ability to limit the rate of the Loopback flag MUST support the ability to limit the rate of the
looped back packets. The rate of looped back packets SHOULD be looped back packets. The rate of looped back packets SHOULD be
limited so that the number of looped back packets is significantly limited so that the number of looped back packets is significantly
lower than the number of packets that are forwarded by the device. lower than the number of packets that are forwarded by the device.
The looped back data rate SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface The looped back data rate SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface
capacity on any of the IOAM node's interfaces. It is recommended to capacity on any of the IOAM node's interfaces. It is recommended to
use N>100. Depending on the IOAM node's architecture considerations, use N>100. Depending on the IOAM node's architecture considerations,
the loopback response rate may be limited to a lower number in order the loopback response rate may be limited to a lower number in order
skipping to change at page 6, line 44 skipping to change at page 7, line 20
space). space).
4.4. Terminating a Looped Back Packet 4.4. Terminating a Looped Back Packet
Once the return packet reaches the IOAM domain boundary, IOAM Once the return packet reaches the IOAM domain boundary, IOAM
decapsulation occurs as with any other packet containing IOAM decapsulation occurs as with any other packet containing IOAM
information. Note that the looped back packet does not have the information. Note that the looped back packet does not have the
L-bit set. The IOAM encapsulating node that initiated the original L-bit set. The IOAM encapsulating node that initiated the original
loopback packet recognizes a received packet as an IOAM looped-back loopback packet recognizes a received packet as an IOAM looped-back
packet by checking the Node ID in the Hop_Lim/node_id field that packet by checking the Node ID in the Hop_Lim/node_id field that
corresponds to the first hop. If the Node ID matches the current corresponds to the first hop. If the Node ID and IOAM-Namespace
IOAM node, it indicates that this is a looped back packet that was match the current IOAM node, it indicates that this is a looped back
initiated by the current IOAM node, and processed accordingly. If packet that was initiated by the current IOAM node, and processed
there is no match in the Node ID, the packet is processed like a accordingly. If there is no match in the Node ID, the packet is
conventional IOAM-encapsulated packet. processed like a conventional IOAM-encapsulated packet.
Note that an IOAM encapsulating node may either be an endpoint (such Note that an IOAM encapsulating node may either be an endpoint (such
as an IPv6 host), or a switch/router that pushes a tunnel as an IPv6 host), or a switch/router that pushes a tunnel
encapsulation onto data packets. In both cases, the functionality encapsulation onto data packets. In both cases, the functionality
that was described above avoids IOAM data leaks from the IOAM domain. that was described above avoids IOAM data leaks from the IOAM domain.
Specificallly, if an IOAM looped-back packet reaches an IOAM boundary Specificallly, if an IOAM looped-back packet reaches an IOAM boundary
node that is not the IOAM node that initiated the loopback, the node node that is not the IOAM node that initiated the loopback, the node
does not process the packet as a loopback; the IOAM encapsulation is does not process the packet as a loopback; the IOAM encapsulation is
removed, and since the packet does not have any payload it is removed, and since the packet does not have any payload it is
terminated. In either case, when the packet reaches the IOAM terminated. In either case, when the packet reaches the IOAM
skipping to change at page 9, line 46 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
the network bandwidth, and does not overload the source node in the the network bandwidth, and does not overload the source node in the
case of loopback. case of loopback.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Specifically, an attacker may try to use [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Specifically, an attacker may try to use
the functionality that is defined in this document to attack the the functionality that is defined in this document to attack the
network. network.
An attacker may attempt to overload network devices by injecting IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,
synthetic packets that include an IOAM Trace Option with one or more thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their effect. This
of the flags defined in this document. Similarly, an on-path is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of
attacker may maliciously set one or more of the flags of transit IOAM, as further discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. However,
packets. even given this limited scope, security threats should still be
considered and mitigated. Specifically, an attacker may attempt to
overload network devices by injecting synthetic packets that include
an IOAM Trace Option with one or more of the flags defined in this
document. Similarly, an on-path attacker may maliciously set one or
more of the flags of transit packets.
o Loopback flag: an attacker that sets this flag, either in o Loopback flag: an attacker that sets this flag, either in
synthetic packets or transit packet, can potentially cause an synthetic packets or transit packet, can potentially cause an
amplification, since each device along the path creates a copy of amplification, since each device along the path creates a copy of
the data packet and sends it back to the source. The attacker can the data packet and sends it back to the source. The attacker can
potentially leverage the Loopback flag for a Distributed Denial of potentially leverage the Loopback flag for a Distributed Denial of
Service (DDoS) attack, as multiple devices send looped-back copies Service (DDoS) attack, as multiple devices send looped-back copies
of a packet to a single source. of a packet to a single source.
o Active flag: the impact of synthetic packets with the Active flag o Active flag: the impact of synthetic packets with the Active flag
skipping to change at page 11, line 10 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
decapsulating nodes), as discussed in Section 4.2. decapsulating nodes), as discussed in Section 4.2.
o Limit the rate of IOAM packets with the Active flag (IOAM o Limit the rate of IOAM packets with the Active flag (IOAM
encapsulating nodes), as discussed in Section 5. encapsulating nodes), as discussed in Section 5.
As defined in Section 4, transit nodes that process a packet with the As defined in Section 4, transit nodes that process a packet with the
Loopback flag only add a single data field, and truncate any payload Loopback flag only add a single data field, and truncate any payload
that follows the IOAM option(s), thus significanly limiting the that follows the IOAM option(s), thus significanly limiting the
possible impact of an amplification attack. possible impact of an amplification attack.
IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain, 9. Acknowledgments
thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their affect. This
is a fundamental assumtion with respect to the security aspects of
IOAM, as further discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
9. References The authors thank Martin Duke, Tommy Pauly, Greg Mirsky, and other
members of the IPPM working group for many helpful comments.
9.1. Normative References 10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-14 (work in for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-15 (work in
progress), June 2021. progress), October 2021.
[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>.
[RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F. [RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009, Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.
[RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow [RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow
Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014, Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014,
September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7014>. September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7014>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options] [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
Bhandari, S. and F. Brockners, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", Bhandari, S. and F. Brockners, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options",
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-06 (work in progress),
July 2021. July 2021.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh] [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh]
Brockners, F. and S. Bhandari, "Network Service Header Brockners, F. and S. Bhandari, "Network Service Header
(NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data", draft- (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data", draft-
ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-06 (work in progress), July 2021. ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-06 (work in progress), July 2021.
skipping to change at page 13, line 16 skipping to change at page 14, line 4
7200-11 Kit Creek Road 7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States United States
Email: cpignata@cisco.com Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Aviv Kfir Aviv Kfir
Nvidia Nvidia
Email: avivk@nvidia.com Email: avivk@nvidia.com
Barak Gafni Barak Gafni
Nvidia Nvidia
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100 350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Sunnyvale, CA 94085
U.S.A. U.S.A.
Email: gbarak@nvidia.com Email: gbarak@nvidia.com
Mickey Spiegel Mickey Spiegel
Barefoot Networks Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
4750 Patrick Henry Drive 4750 Patrick Henry Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara, CA 95054
US US
Email: mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com Email: mickey.spiegel@intel.com
Jennifer Lemon Jennifer Lemon
Broadcom Broadcom
270 Innovation Drive 270 Innovation Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
US US
Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
57 lines changed or deleted 79 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/