draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-03.txt | draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-04.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
ippm S. Bhandari | ippm S. Bhandari | |||
Internet-Draft F. Brockners | Internet-Draft Thoughtspot | |||
Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro | Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners | |||
Expires: March 22, 2021 Cisco | Expires: May 5, 2021 C. Pignataro | |||
Cisco | ||||
H. Gredler | H. Gredler | |||
RtBrick Inc. | RtBrick Inc. | |||
J. Leddy | J. Leddy | |||
Comcast | Comcast | |||
S. Youell | S. Youell | |||
JMPC | JMPC | |||
T. Mizrahi | T. Mizrahi | |||
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab | Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab | |||
A. Kfir | A. Kfir | |||
B. Gafni | B. Gafni | |||
Mellanox Technologies, Inc. | Mellanox Technologies, Inc. | |||
P. Lapukhov | P. Lapukhov | |||
M. Spiegel | M. Spiegel | |||
Barefoot Networks, an Intel company | Barefoot Networks, an Intel company | |||
S. Krishnan | S. Krishnan | |||
Kaloom | Kaloom | |||
R. Asati | R. Asati | |||
Cisco | Cisco | |||
M. Smith | M. Smith | |||
September 18, 2020 | November 1, 2020 | |||
In-situ OAM IPv6 Options | In-situ OAM IPv6 Options | |||
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-03 | draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-04 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records | In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records | |||
operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet | operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet | |||
traverses a path between two points in the network. This document | traverses a path between two points in the network. This document | |||
outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in IPv6. | outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in IPv6. | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 10 ¶ | |||
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 22, 2021. | This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2021. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2020 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 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 44 ¶ | |||
4. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks . . . 6 | 4.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks . . . 6 | |||
4.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.4. Deployment options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.4. Deployment options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.4.1. IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.4.1. IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.4.2. IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4.4.2. IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
4.4.3. x-in-IPv6 Encapsulation that is used Independently . 9 | 4.4.3. x-in-IPv6 Encapsulation that is used Independently . 9 | |||
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records | In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records | |||
operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet | operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet | |||
traverses a path between two points in the network. This document | traverses a path between two points in the network. This document | |||
outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in the IPv6 [RFC8200] | outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in the IPv6 [RFC8200] | |||
and discusses deployment options for networks which leverage IOAM | and discusses deployment options for networks that use | |||
data fields encapsulated in the IPv6 protocol. Deployment | IPv6-encapsulated IOAM data fields. These options have distinct | |||
considerations differ, whether the IOAM domain starts and ends on | deployment considerations; for example, the IOAM domain can either be | |||
hosts or whether the IOAM encapsulating and decapsulating nodes are | between hosts, or be between IOAM encapsulating and decapsulating | |||
network devices that forward traffic, such as routers. | network nodes that forward traffic, such as routers. | |||
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 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 44 ¶ | |||
ION: IOAM Overlay Network | ION: IOAM Overlay Network | |||
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance | OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance | |||
POT: Proof of Transit | POT: Proof of Transit | |||
3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6 | 3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6 | |||
In-situ OAM in IPv6 is used to enhance diagnostics of IPv6 networks. | In-situ OAM in IPv6 is used to enhance diagnostics of IPv6 networks. | |||
It complements other mechanisms proposed to enhance diagnostics of | It complements other mechanisms designed to enhance diagnostics of | |||
IPv6 networks, such as the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics | IPv6 networks, such as the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics | |||
Destination Option described in [RFC8250]. | Destination Option described in [RFC8250]. | |||
IOAM data fields are encapsulated in "option data" fields of two | IOAM data fields can be encapsulated in "option data" fields using | |||
types of extension headers in IPv6 packets - either Hop-by-Hop | two types of extension headers in IPv6 packets - either Hop-by-Hop | |||
Options header or Destination options header. The selection of a | Options header or Destination options header. Deployments select one | |||
particular extension header type depends on IOAM usage, as described | of these extension header types depending on how IOAM is used, as | |||
in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Multiple options with the | described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Multiple | |||
same Option Type MAY appear in the same Hop-by-Hop Options or | options with the same Option Type MAY appear in the same Hop-by-Hop | |||
Destination Options header, with varying content. | Options or Destination Options header, with distinct content. | |||
In order for IOAM to work in IPv6 networks, IOAM MUST be explicitly | In order for IOAM to work in IPv6 networks, IOAM MUST be explicitly | |||
enabled per interface on every node within the IOAM domain. Unless a | enabled per interface on every node within the IOAM domain. Unless a | |||
particular interface is explicitly enabled (i.e. explicitly | particular interface is explicitly enabled (i.e., explicitly | |||
configured) for IOAM, a router MUST drop packets which contain | configured) for IOAM, a router MUST drop packets that contain | |||
extension headers carrying IOAM data-fields. This is the default | extension headers carrying IOAM data-fields. This is the default | |||
behavior and is independent of whether the Hop-by-Hop options or | behavior and is independent of whether the Hop-by-Hop options or | |||
Destination options are used to encode the IOAM data. This ensures | Destination options are used to encode the IOAM data. This ensures | |||
that IOAM data does not unintentionally get forwarded outside the | that IOAM data does not unintentionally get forwarded outside the | |||
IOAM domain. | IOAM domain. | |||
An IPv6 packet carrying IOAM data in an Extension header can have | An IPv6 packet carrying IOAM data in an Extension header can have | |||
other extension headers, compliant with [RFC8200]. | other extension headers, compliant with [RFC8200]. | |||
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option format for carrying in-situ | IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option format for carrying in-situ | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 13 ¶ | |||
and Destination Options header. In addition, to maintain IPv6 | and Destination Options header. In addition, to maintain IPv6 | |||
extension header 8-octet alignment and avoid the need to add or | extension header 8-octet alignment and avoid the need to add or | |||
remove padding at every hop, the Trace-Type for Incremental Trace | remove padding at every hop, the Trace-Type for Incremental Trace | |||
Option in IPv6 MUST be selected such that the IOAM node data length | Option in IPv6 MUST be selected such that the IOAM node data length | |||
is a multiple of 8-octets. | is a multiple of 8-octets. | |||
4. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks | 4. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks | |||
4.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks | 4.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks | |||
IOAM deployment in an IPv6 network should take the following | IOAM deployments in IPv6 networks should take the following | |||
considerations and requirements into account: | considerations and requirements into account: | |||
C1 It is desirable that the addition of IOAM data fields neither | C1 It is desirable that the addition of IOAM data fields neither | |||
changes the way routers forward the packets, nor the forwarding | changes the way routers forward packets nor the forwarding | |||
decision the routers takes. The packet with the added OAM | decisions the routers take. Packets with added OAM information | |||
information should follow the same path within the domain that the | should follow the same path within the domain that an identical | |||
same packet without the OAM information would follow within the | packet without OAM information would follow, even in the presence | |||
domain even in the presence of ECMP. Such a behavior is | of ECMP. Such behavior is particularly important for deployments | |||
particularly interesting for deployments where IOAM data fields | where IOAM data fields are only added "on-demand", e.g., to | |||
are only added "on-demand", e.g. to provide further insights in | provide further insights in case of undesired network behavior for | |||
case of undesired network behavior for certain flows. | certain flows. Implementations of IOAM SHOULD ensure that ECMP | |||
Implementations of IOAM should ensure that ECMP behavior for | behavior for packets with and without IOAM data fields is the | |||
packets with and without IOAM data fields is the same. | same. | |||
C2 Given that IOAM data fields increase the total size of the packet, | C2 Given that IOAM data fields increase the total size of a packet, | |||
the size of the packet including the IOAM data could exceed the | the size of a packet including the IOAM data could exceed the | |||
PMTU. In particular, the incremental trace IOAM HbH Option, which | PMTU. In particular, the incremental trace IOAM Hop-by-Hop (HbH) | |||
is proposed to support hardware implementations of IOAM, changes | Option, which is intended to support hardware implementations of | |||
Option Data Length en-route. Operators of an IOAM domain are to | IOAM, changes Option Data Length en-route. Operators of an IOAM | |||
ensure that the addition of OAM information does not lead to | domain SHOULD ensure that the addition of OAM information does not | |||
fragmentation of the packet, e.g. by configuring the MTU of | lead to fragmentation of the packet, e.g., by configuring the MTU | |||
transit routers and switches to a sufficiently high value. | of transit routers and switches to a sufficiently high value. | |||
Careful control of the MTU in a network is one of the reasons why | Careful control of the MTU in a network is one of the reasons why | |||
IOAM is considered a domain specific feature, see also | IOAM is considered a domain-specific feature (see also | |||
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. In addition, the PMTU tolerance range | [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]). In addition, the PMTU tolerance range | |||
in the IOAM domain should be identified (e.g. through | in the IOAM domain should be identified (e.g., through | |||
configuration) and IOAM encapsulation operations and/or IOAM data | configuration) and IOAM encapsulation operations and/or IOAM data | |||
field insertion (in case of incremental tracing) should not be | field insertion (in case of incremental tracing) should not be | |||
performed if it exceeds the packet size beyond PMTU. | performed if it exceeds the packet size beyond PMTU. | |||
C3 Packets with IOAM data or associated ICMP errors, should not | C3 Packets with IOAM data or associated ICMP errors, should not | |||
arrive at destinations which have no knowledge of IOAM. Consider | arrive at destinations that have no knowledge of IOAM. For | |||
using IOAM in transit devices; misleading ICMP errors due to | exmample, if IOAM is used in in transit devices, misleading ICMP | |||
addition and/or presence of OAM data in the packet can confuse a | errors due to addition and/or presence of OAM data in a packet | |||
source of the packet that did not insert the OAM information. | could confuse the host that sent the packet if it did not insert | |||
the OAM information. | ||||
C4 OAM data leaks may affect the forwarding behavior and state of | C4 OAM data leaks can affect the forwarding behavior and state of | |||
network elements outside an IOAM domain. IOAM domains SHOULD | network elements outside an IOAM domain. IOAM domains SHOULD | |||
provide a mechanism to prevent data leaks or be able to assure | provide a mechanism to prevent data leaks or be able to ensure | |||
that upon leak network elements outside the domain are not | that if a leak occurs, network elements outside the domain are not | |||
affected i.e they continue to process other valid packets. | affected (i.e., they continue to process other valid packets). | |||
C5 The source of that inserted and leaked the IOAM data must be easy | C5 The source that inserts and leaks the IOAM data needs to be easy | |||
to identify for the purpose of troubleshooting, due to the high | to identify for the purpose of troubleshooting, due to the high | |||
complexity of troubleshooting a source that inserted the IOAM data | complexity of troubleshooting a source that inserted the IOAM data | |||
and did not remove it when the packet traversed across an AS. | and did not remove it when the packet traversed across an | |||
Such a troubleshooting process may require coordination between | Autonomous System (AS). Such a troubleshooting process might | |||
multiple operators, complicated configuration verification, packet | require coordination between multiple operators, complex | |||
capture analysis, etc. | configuration verification, packet capture analysis, etc. | |||
C6 Compliance with [RFC8200] would require OAM data to be | C6 Compliance with [RFC8200] requires OAM data to be encapsulated | |||
encapsulated instead of header/option insertion directly into in- | instead of header/option insertion directly into in-flight packets | |||
flight packets using the original IPv6 header. | using the original IPv6 header. | |||
4.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts | 4.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts | |||
For deployments where the IOAM domain is bounded by hosts, hosts will | For deployments where the IOAM domain is bounded by hosts, hosts will | |||
perform the operation of IOAM data field encapsulation and | perform the operation of IOAM data field encapsulation and | |||
decapsulation. IOAM data is carried in IPv6 packets as Hop-by-Hop or | decapsulation. IOAM data is carried in IPv6 packets as Hop-by-Hop or | |||
Destination options as specified in this document. | Destination options as specified in this document. | |||
4.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices | 4.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 44 ¶ | |||
Network devices will perform the operation of IOAM data field | Network devices will perform the operation of IOAM data field | |||
encapsulation and decapsulation. | encapsulation and decapsulation. | |||
4.4. Deployment options | 4.4. Deployment options | |||
This section lists out possible deployment options that can be | This section lists out possible deployment options that can be | |||
employed to meet the requirements listed in Section 4.1. | employed to meet the requirements listed in Section 4.1. | |||
4.4.1. IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation | 4.4.1. IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation | |||
Leverage an IPv6-in-IPv6 approach: Preserve the original IP packet | The "IPv6-in-IPv6" approach preserves the original IP packet and add | |||
and add an IPv6 header including IOAM data fields in an extension | an IPv6 header including IOAM data fields in an extension header in | |||
header in front of it, to forward traffic within and across the IOAM | front of it, to forward traffic within and across an IOAM domain. | |||
domain. The overlay network formed by the additional IPv6 header | The overlay network formed by the additional IPv6 header with the | |||
with the IOAM data fields included in an extension header is referred | IOAM data fields included in an extension header is referred to as | |||
to as IOAM Overlay Network (ION) in this document. | IOAM Overlay Network (ION) in this document. | |||
1. Perform an IPv6-in-IPv6 approach. The source address of the | The following steps should be taken to perform an IPv6-in-IPv6 | |||
outer IPv6 header is that of the IOAM encapsulating node. The | approach: | |||
destination address of the outer IPv6 header is the same as the | ||||
inner IPv6 destination address, i.e. the destination address of | ||||
the packet does not change. | ||||
2. To simplify debugging in case of leaked IOAM data fields in | 1. The source address of the outer IPv6 header is that of the IOAM | |||
packets, consider a new IOAM E2E destination option to identify | encapsulating node. The destination address of the outer IPv6 | |||
the Source IOAM domain (AS, v6 prefix). Insert this option into | header is the same as the inner IPv6 destination address, i.e., | |||
the IOAM destination options EH attached to the outer IPv6 | the destination address of the packet does not change. | |||
header. This additional information would allow for easy | ||||
identification of an AS operator that is the source of packets | ||||
with leaked IOAM information. Note that leaked packets with IOAM | ||||
data fields would only occur in case a router would be | ||||
misconfigured. | ||||
3. All the IOAM options are defined with type "00 - skip over this | 2. To simplify debugging in case of leaked IOAM data fields, | |||
option and continue processing the header. So presence of the | consider a new IOAM E2E destination option to identify the Source | |||
options must not cause packet drop in the network elements that | IOAM domain (AS, v6 prefix). Insert this option into the IOAM | |||
do not understand the option. In addition | destination options EH attached to the outer IPv6 header. This | |||
additional information would allow for easy identification of an | ||||
AS operator that is the source of packets with leaked IOAM | ||||
information. Note that leaked packets with IOAM data fields | ||||
would only occur in case a router would be misconfigured. | ||||
3. All the IOAM options are defined with type "00" - skip over this | ||||
option and continue processing the header. Presence of these | ||||
options must not cause packet drops in network elements that do | ||||
not understand the option. In addition, | ||||
[I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling] should be considered. | [I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling] should be considered. | |||
4.4.2. IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA | 4.4.2. IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA | |||
The "IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA" [RFC4193] approach can be | The "IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA" [RFC4193] approach can be | |||
used to apply IOAM to an IPv6 as well as an IPv4 network. In | used to apply IOAM to either an IPv6 or an IPv4 network. In | |||
addition, it fulfills requirement C4 (avoid leaks) by using ULA for | addition, it fulfills requirement C4 (avoid leaks) by using ULA for | |||
the ION. Similar to the IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation approach above, | the ION. Similar to the IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation approach above, | |||
the original IP packet is preserved. An IPv6 header including IOAM | the original IP packet is preserved. An IPv6 header including IOAM | |||
data fields in an extension header is added in front of it, to | data fields in an extension header is added in front of it, to | |||
forward traffic within and across the IOAM domain. IPv6 addresses | forward traffic within and across the IOAM domain. IPv6 addresses | |||
for the ION, i.e. the outer IPv6 addresses are assigned from the ULA | for the ION, i.e. the outer IPv6 addresses are assigned from the ULA | |||
space. Addressing and routing in the ION are to be configured so | space. Addressing and routing in the ION are to be configured so | |||
that the IP-in-IPv6 encapsulated packets follow the same path as the | that the IP-in-IPv6 encapsulated packets follow the same path as the | |||
original, non-encapsulated packet would have taken. This would | original, non-encapsulated packet would have taken. This would | |||
create an internal IPv6 forwarding topology using the IOAM domain's | create an internal IPv6 forwarding topology using the IOAM domain's | |||
interior ULA address space which is parallel with the forwarding | interior ULA address space which is parallel with the forwarding | |||
topology that exists with the non-IOAM address space (the topology | topology that exists with the non-IOAM address space (the topology | |||
and address space that would be followed by packets that do not have | and address space that would be followed by packets that do not have | |||
supplemental IOAM information). Establishment and maintenance of the | supplemental IOAM information). Establishment and maintenance of the | |||
parallel IOAM ULA forwarding topology could be automated, e.g. | parallel IOAM ULA forwarding topology could be automated, e.g., | |||
similar to how LDP [RFC5036] is used in MPLS to establish and | similar to how LDP [RFC5036] is used in MPLS to establish and | |||
maintain an LSP forwarding topology that is parallel to the network's | maintain an LSP forwarding topology that is parallel to the network's | |||
IGP forwarding topology. | IGP forwarding topology. | |||
Transit across the ION could leverage the transit approach for | Transit across the ION could leverage the transit approach for | |||
traffic between BGP border routers, as described in [RFC1772], "A.2.3 | traffic between BGP border routers, as described in [RFC1772], "A.2.3 | |||
Encapsulation". Assuming that the operational guidelines specified | Encapsulation". Assuming that the operational guidelines specified | |||
in Section 4 of [RFC4193] are properly followed, the probability of | in Section 4 of [RFC4193] are properly followed, the probability of | |||
leaks in this approach will be almost close to zero. If the packets | leaks in this approach will be almost close to zero. If the packets | |||
do leak through IOAM egress device misconfiguration or partial IOAM | do leak through IOAM egress device misconfiguration or partial IOAM | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 30 ¶ | |||
the IOAM decapsulating node. | the IOAM decapsulating node. | |||
5. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
This document describes the encapsulation of IOAM data fields in | This document describes the encapsulation of IOAM data fields in | |||
IPv6. Security considerations of the specific IOAM data fields for | IPv6. Security considerations of the specific IOAM data fields for | |||
each case (i.e., Trace, Proof of Transit, and E2E) are described and | each case (i.e., Trace, Proof of Transit, and E2E) are described and | |||
defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. | defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. | |||
As this document describes new options for IPv6, these are similar to | As this document describes new options for IPv6, these are similar to | |||
the security considerations of [RFC8200] and the new weakness | the security considerations of [RFC8200] and the weakness documented | |||
documented in [RFC8250]. | in [RFC8250]. | |||
6. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
This draft requests the following IPv6 Option Type assignments from | This draft requests the following IPv6 Option Type assignments from | |||
the Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options sub-registry of | the Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options sub-registry of | |||
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters. | Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters. | |||
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6- | http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6- | |||
parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2 | parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2 | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 26 ¶ | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. | |||
[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>. | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Shwetha Bhandari | Shwetha Bhandari | |||
Cisco Systems, Inc. | Thoughtspot | |||
Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road | 3rd Floor, Indiqube Orion, 24th Main Rd, Garden Layout, HSR Layout | |||
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087 | Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 102 | |||
India | India | |||
Email: shwethab@cisco.com | Email: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com | |||
Frank Brockners | Frank Brockners | |||
Cisco Systems, Inc. | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
Kaiserswerther Str. 115, | Kaiserswerther Str. 115, | |||
RATINGEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40880 | RATINGEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40880 | |||
Germany | Germany | |||
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com | Email: fbrockne@cisco.com | |||
Carlos Pignataro | Carlos Pignataro | |||
End of changes. 28 change blocks. | ||||
92 lines changed or deleted | 95 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/ |