< draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-03.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-04.txt >
	IPPM H. Song		IPPM H. Song
	Internet-Draft Futurewei		Internet-Draft Futurewei
	Intended status: Standards Track B. Gafni		Intended status: Standards Track B. Gafni
	Expires: August 21, 2021 Nvidia		Expires: January 2, 2022 Nvidia
	T. Zhou		T. Zhou
	Z. Li		Z. Li
	Huawei		Huawei
	F. Brockners		F. Brockners
	Cisco		Cisco
	S. Bhandari, Ed.		S. Bhandari, Ed.
	Thoughtspot		Thoughtspot
	R. Sivakolundu		R. Sivakolundu
	Cisco		Cisco
	T. Mizrahi, Ed.		T. Mizrahi, Ed.
	Huawei		Huawei
	February 17, 2021		July 1, 2021
	In-situ OAM Direct Exporting		In-situ OAM Direct Exporting
	draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-03		draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used		In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
	for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information.		for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information.
	Specifically, IOAM allows telemetry data to be pushed into data		Specifically, IOAM allows telemetry data to be pushed into data
	packets while they traverse the network. This document introduces a		packets while they traverse the network. This document introduces a
	new IOAM option type called the Direct Export (DEX) option, which is		new IOAM option type called the Direct Export (DEX) option, which is
	used as a trigger for IOAM data to be directly exported without being		used as a trigger for IOAM data to be directly exported or locally
	pushed into in-flight data packets.		aggregated without being pushed into in-flight data packets. The
			exporting method and format are outside the scope of this document.
	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 August 21, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 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 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 28 ¶
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM Option Type . . . . . . . . . 3		3. The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM Option Type . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.2. The DEX Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1.1. DEX Packet Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.1.2. Responding to the DEX Trigger . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1. IOAM Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. The DEX Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.2. IOAM DEX Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. IOAM Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2. IOAM DEX Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Appendix A. Hop Limit and Hop Count in Direct Exporting . . . . 8		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			Appendix A. Hop Limit and Hop Count in Direct Exporting . . . . 10
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	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, and for incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data		network, and for incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data
	packets.		packets.
	IOAM makes use of four possible IOAM options, defined in		IOAM makes use of four possible IOAM options, defined in
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]: Pre-allocated Trace Option, Incremental		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]: Pre-allocated Trace Option, Incremental
	Trace Option, Proof of Transit (POT) Option, and Edge-to-Edge Option.		Trace Option, Proof of Transit (POT) Option, and Edge-to-Edge Option.
	This document defines a new IOAM option type (also known as an IOAM		This document defines a new IOAM option type (also known as an IOAM
	type) called the Direct Export (DEX) option. This option is used as		type) called the Direct Export (DEX) option. This option is used as
	a trigger for IOAM nodes to export IOAM data to a receiving entity		a trigger for IOAM nodes to locally aggregate and process IOAM data,
	(or entities). A "receiving entity" in this context can be, for		and/or to export it to a receiving entity (or entities). A
	example, an external collector, analyzer, controller, decapsulating		"receiving entity" in this context can be, for example, an external
	node, or a software module in one of the IOAM nodes.		collector, analyzer, controller, decapsulating node, or a software
			module in one of the IOAM nodes.
			Note that even though the IOAM Option-Type is called "Direct Export",
			it depends on the deployment whether the receipt of a packet with DEX
			option type leads to the creation of another packet. Some
			deployments might simply use the packet with the DEX option type to
			trigger local processing of OAM data.
	This draft has evolved from combining some of the concepts of PBT-I		This draft has evolved from combining some of the concepts of PBT-I
	from [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] with immediate		from [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] with immediate
	exporting from [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags].		exporting from [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags].
	2. Conventions		2. Conventions
	2.1. Requirement Language		2.1. Requirement Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	skipping to change at page 3, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 47 ¶
	IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance		IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
	OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance		OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
	DEX: Direct EXporting		DEX: Direct EXporting
	3. The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM Option Type		3. The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM Option Type
	3.1. Overview		3.1. Overview
	The DEX option is used as a trigger for exporting telemetry data to a		The DEX option is used as a trigger for collecting IOAM data locally
	receiving entity (or entities).		or for exporting it to a receiving entity (or entities).
			Specifically, the DEX option can be used as a trigger for collecting
			IOAM data by an IOAM node and locally aggregating it; thus, this
			aggregated data can be periodically pushed to a receiving entity, or
			pulled by a receiving entity on-demand.
	This option is incorporated into data packets by an IOAM		This option is incorporated into data packets by an IOAM
	encapsulating node, and removed by an IOAM decapsulating node, as		encapsulating node, and removed by an IOAM decapsulating node, as
	illustrated in Figure 1. The option can be read but not modified by		illustrated in Figure 1. The option can be read but not modified by
	transit nodes. Note: the terms IOAM encapsulating, decapsulating and		transit nodes. Note: the terms IOAM encapsulating, decapsulating and
	transit nodes are as defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].		transit nodes are as defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
	^		^
	|Exported IOAM data		|Exported IOAM data
	|		|
	skipping to change at page 4, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 30 ¶
	packets |Encapsu-| | Transit| | Transit| |Decapsu-|		packets |Encapsu-| | Transit| | Transit| |Decapsu-|
	--------->|lating |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>|lating |---->		--------->|lating |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>|lating |---->
	|Node | | A | | B | |Node |		|Node | | A | | B | |Node |
	+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+		+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
	Insert DEX Export Export Remove DEX		Insert DEX Export Export Remove DEX
	option and IOAM data IOAM data option and		option and IOAM data IOAM data option and
	export data export data		export data export data
	Figure 1: DEX Architecture		Figure 1: DEX Architecture
	The DEX option is used as a trigger to export IOAM data. The trigger		The DEX option is used as a trigger to collect and/or export IOAM
	applies to transit nodes, the decapsulating node, and the		data. The trigger applies to transit nodes, the decapsulating node,
	encapsulating node:		and the encapsulating node:
	o An IOAM encapsulating node configured to incorporate the DEX		o An IOAM encapsulating node configured to incorporate the DEX
	option encapsulates the packet with the DEX option, and MAY export		option encapsulates (possibly a subset of) the packets it forwards
	the requested IOAM data immediately. The IOAM encapsulating node		with the DEX option, and MAY export and/or collect the requested
	is the only type of node allowed to push the DEX option.		IOAM data immediately. Only IOAM encapsulating nodes are allowed
			to add the DEX option type to a packet.
	o A transit node that processes a packet with the DEX option MAY		o A transit node that processes a packet with the DEX option MAY
	export the requested IOAM data.		export and/or collect the requested IOAM data.
	o An IOAM decapsulating node that processes a packet with the DEX		o An IOAM decapsulating node that processes a packet with the DEX
	option MAY export the requested IOAM data, and MUST decapsulate		option MAY export and/or collect the requested IOAM data, and MUST
	the IOAM header.		decapsulate the IOAM header.
	As in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], the DEX option may be incorporated		As in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], the DEX option can be incorporated
	into all or a subset of the traffic that is forwarded by the		into all or a subset of the traffic that is forwarded by the
	encapsulating node. Moreover, IOAM nodes MAY export data for all		encapsulating node, as further discussed in Section 3.1.1 below.
	traversing packets that carry the DEX option, or MAY selectively		Moreover, IOAM nodes respond to the DEX trigger by exporting and/or
	export data only for a subset of these packets.		collection IOAM data either for all traversing packets that carry the
			DEX option, or selectively only for a subset of these packets, as
			further discussed in Section 3.1.2 below.
	The DEX option specifies which data fields should be exported, as		3.1.1. DEX Packet Selection
	specified in Section 3.2. The format and encapsulation of the packet
			If an IOAM encapsulating node incorporates the DEX option into all
			the traffic it forwards it may lead to an excessive amount of
			exported data, which may overload the network and the receiving
			entity. Therefore, an IOAM encapsulating node that supports the DEX
			option MUST support the ability to incorporate the DEX option
			selectively into a subset of the packets that are forwarded by it.
			Various methods of packet selection and sampling have been previously
			defined, such as [RFC7014] and [RFC5475]. Similar techniques can be
			applied by an IOAM encapsulating node to apply DEX to a subset of the
			forwarded traffic.
			The subset of traffic that is forwarded or transmitted with a DEX
			option SHOULD not exceed 1/N of the interface capacity on any of the
			IOAM encapsulating node's interfaces. It is noted that this
			requirement applies to the total traffic that incorporates a DEX
			option, including traffic that is forwarded by the IOAM encapsulating
			node and probe packets that are generated by the IOAM encapsulating
			node. In this context N is a parameter that can be configurable by
			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
			to use an N such that N >> M. The rationale is that a packet that
			includes a DEX option may trigger an exported packet from each IOAM
			transit node along the path for a total of M exported packets. Thus,
			if N >> M then the number of exported packets is significantly lower
			than the number of data packets forwarded by the IOAM encapsulating
			node. If there is no prior knowledge about the network topology or
			size, it is recommended to use N>100.
			3.1.2. Responding to the DEX Trigger
			The DEX option specifies which data fields should be exported and/or
			collected, as specified in Section 3.2. As mentioned above, the data
			can be locally collected, and optionally can be aggregated and
			exported to a receiving entity, either proactively or on-demand. If
			IOAM data is exported, the format and encapsulation of the packet
	that contains the exported data is not within the scope of the		that contains the exported data is not within the scope of the
	current document. For example, the export format can be based on		current document. For example, the export format can be based on
	[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport].		[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport].
			An IOAM node that performs DEX-triggered exporting MUST support the
			ability to limit the rate of the exported packets. The rate of
			exported packets SHOULD be limited so that the number of exported
			packets is significantly lower than the number of packets that are
			exported by the device. The exported data rate SHOULD not exceed 1/N
			of the interface capacity on any of the IOAM node's interfaces. It
			is recommended to use N>100. Depending on the IOAM node's
			architecture considerations, the export rate may be limited to a
			lower number in order to avoid loading the IOAM node.
			Exported packets SHOULD not be exported over a path or a tunnel that
			is subject to IOAM direct exporting. Furthermore, IOAM encapsulating
			nodes that push a DEX option into traversing packets MUST avoid
			pushing an IOAM header into IOAM exported packets. This requirement
			is intended to prevent nested exporting and/or exporting loops.
	A transit IOAM node that does not support the DEX option SHOULD		A transit IOAM node that does not support the DEX option SHOULD
	ignore it. A decapsulating node that does not support the DEX option		ignore it. A decapsulating node that does not support the DEX option
	MUST remove it, along with any other IOAM options carried in the		MUST remove it, along with any other IOAM options carried in the
	packet if such exist.		packet if such exist.
	3.2. The DEX Option Format		3.2. The DEX Option Format
	The format of the DEX option is depicted in Figure 2. The length of		The format of the DEX option is depicted in Figure 2. The length of
	the DEX option is either 8 octets or 16 octets, as the Flow ID and		the DEX option is either 8 octets or 16 octets, as the Flow ID and
	the Sequence Number fields (summing up to 8 octets) are optional. It		the Sequence Number fields (summing up to 8 octets) are optional. It
	skipping to change at page 6, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 13 ¶
	If possible, IANA is requested to allocate code point 4 (TBD-type).		If possible, IANA is requested to allocate code point 4 (TBD-type).
	4.2. IOAM DEX Flags		4.2. IOAM DEX Flags
	IANA is requested to define an "IOAM DEX Flags" registry. This		IANA is requested to define an "IOAM DEX Flags" registry. This
	registry includes 16 flag bits. Allocation should be performed based		registry includes 16 flag bits. Allocation should be performed based
	on the "RFC Required" procedure, as defined in [RFC8126].		on the "RFC Required" procedure, as defined in [RFC8126].
	5. Performance Considerations		5. Performance Considerations
	The DEX option triggers exported packets to be exported to a		The DEX option triggers IOAM data to be collected and/or exported
	receiving entity (or entities). In some cases this may impact the		packets to be exported to a receiving entity (or entities). In some
	receiving entity's performance, or the performance along the paths		cases this may impact the receiving entity's performance, or the
	leading to it.		performance along the paths leading to it.
	Therefore, rate limiting may be enabled so as to ensure that direct		Therefore, the performance impact of these exported packets is
	exporting is used at a rate that does not significantly affect the		limited by taking two measures: at the encapsulating nodes, by
	network bandwidth, and does not overload the receiving entity (or the		selective DEX encapsulation (Section 3.1.1), and at the transit
	source node in the case of loopback). It should be possible to use		nodes, by limiting exporting rate (Section 3.1.2). These two
	each DEX on a subset of the data traffic, and to load balance the		measures ensure that direct exporting is used at a rate that does not
	exported data among multiple receiving entities.		significantly affect the network bandwidth, and does not overload the
			receiving entity. Moreover, it is possible to load balance the
			exported data among multiple receiving entities, although the
			exporting method is not within the scope of this document.
	6. Security Considerations		6. 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		An attacker may attempt to overload network devices by injecting
	synthetic packets that include the DEX option. Similarly, an on-path		synthetic packets that include the DEX option. Similarly, an on-path
	skipping to change at page 7, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 7 ¶
	The amplification effect of DEX may be worse in wide area networks in		The amplification effect of DEX may be worse in wide area networks in
	which there are multiple IOAM domains. For example, if DEX is used		which there are multiple IOAM domains. For example, if DEX is used
	in IOAM domain 1 for exporting IOAM data to a receiving entity, then		in IOAM domain 1 for exporting IOAM data to a receiving entity, then
	the exported packets of domain 1 can be forwarded through IOAM domain		the exported packets of domain 1 can be forwarded through IOAM domain
	2, in which they are subject to DEX. The exported packets of domain		2, in which they are subject to DEX. The exported packets of domain
	2 may in turn be forwarded through another IOAM domain (or through		2 may in turn be forwarded through another IOAM domain (or through
	domain 1), and theoretically this recursive amplification may		domain 1), and theoretically this recursive amplification may
	continue infinitely.		continue infinitely.
	In order to mitigate the attacks described above, it should be		In order to mitigate the attacks described above, the following
	possible for IOAM-enabled devices to limit the exported IOAM data to		requirements (Section 3) have been defined:
	a configurable rate.
			o Selective DEX (Section 3.1.1) is applied by IOAM encpsulating
			nodes in order to limit the potential impact of DEX attacks to a
			small fraction of the traffic.
			o Rate limiting of exported traffic (Section 3.1.2) is applied by
			IOAM nodes in order to prevent overloading attacks and in order to
			significantly limit the scale of amplification attacks.
			o IOAM encapsulating nodes are required to avoid pushing the DEX
			option into IOAM exported packets (Section 3.1.2), thus preventing
			some of the amplification and export loop scenarios.
			Although the exporting method is not within the scope of this
			document, any exporting method MUST secure the exported data from the
			IOAM node to the receiving entity. Specifically, an IOAM node that
			performs DEX exporting MUST send the exported data to a pre-
			configured trusted receiving entity.
	IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,		IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,
	thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their affect. This		thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their affect. This
	is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of		is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of
	IOAM, as further discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].		IOAM, as further discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
	7. References		7. References
	7.1. Normative References		7.1. 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-11 (work in		for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12 (work in
	progress), November 2020.		progress), February 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.
			Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
			Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.
			[RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow
			Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/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>.
	7.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
	Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,		Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
	Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.		Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
	Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-03		Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-04
	(work in progress), October 2020.		(work in progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]		[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
	Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Mirsky, G., Shin, J., and K.		Song, H., Mirsky, G., Filsfils, C., Abdelsalam, A., Zhou,
	Lee, "Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry using		T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee, "Postcard-based On-Path
	Packet Marking", draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-		Flow Data Telemetry using Packet Marking", draft-song-
	telemetry-08 (work in progress), October 2020.		ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-09 (work in progress),
			February 2021.
	[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]		[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]
	Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.		Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.
	Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",		Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",
	draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-04 (work in progress),		draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-04 (work in progress),
	November 2020.		November 2020.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for		[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,		Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,		RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
End of changes. 24 change blocks.
	59 lines changed or deleted		159 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/