< draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-05.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-06.txt >
ippm S. Bhandari ippm S. Bhandari, Ed.
Internet-Draft Thoughtspot Internet-Draft Thoughtspot
Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners, Ed.
Expires: August 25, 2021 C. Pignataro Expires: February 1, 2022 Cisco
Cisco July 31, 2021
H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
J. Leddy
Comcast
S. Youell
JMPC
T. Mizrahi
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
A. Kfir
B. Gafni
Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
P. Lapukhov
Facebook
M. Spiegel
Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
S. Krishnan
Kaloom
R. Asati
Cisco
M. Smith
February 21, 2021
In-situ OAM IPv6 Options In-situ OAM IPv6 Options
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-05 draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-06
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 1, line 34
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 25, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 1, 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
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.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks . . . 6 5. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks . . . 7
4.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Deployment options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.1. IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. Deployment options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.2. IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4.1. IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.3. x-in-IPv6 Encapsulation that is used Independently . 9 5.4.2. IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4.3. x-in-IPv6 Encapsulation that is used Independently . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 that use and discusses deployment options for networks that use
IPv6-encapsulated IOAM data fields. These options have distinct IPv6-encapsulated IOAM data fields. These options have distinct
deployment considerations; for example, the IOAM domain can either be deployment considerations; for example, the IOAM domain can either be
between hosts, or be between IOAM encapsulating and decapsulating between hosts, or be between IOAM encapsulating and decapsulating
network nodes that forward traffic, such as routers. network nodes that forward traffic, such as routers.
2. Conventions 2. Contributors
2.1. Requirements Language This document was the collective effort of several authors. The text
and content were contributed by the editors and the co-authors listed
below. The contact information of the co-authors appears at the end
of this document.
o Carlos Pignataro
o Hannes Gredler
o John Leddy
o Stephen Youell
o Tal Mizrahi
o Aviv Kfir
o Barak Gafni
o Petr Lapukhov
o Mickey Spiegel
o Suresh Krishnan
o Rajiv Asati
o Mark Smith
3. Conventions
3.1. 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.
2.2. Abbreviations 3.2. Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this document: Abbreviations used in this document:
E2E: Edge-to-Edge E2E: Edge-to-Edge
IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
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 4. 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 designed 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 can be encapsulated in "option data" fields using IOAM data fields can be encapsulated in "option data" fields using
two 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. Deployments select one Options header or Destination options header. Deployments select one
of these extension header types depending on how IOAM is used, as of these extension header types depending on how IOAM is used, as
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 23
. . . . . .
. Option Data . O . Option Data . O
. . P . . P
. . T . . T
. . I . . I
. . O . . O
. . N . . N
| | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
Option Type: 8-bit option type identifier as defined inSection 6. Option Type: 8-bit option type identifier as defined inSection 7.
Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of this option, in Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of this option, in
octets, not including the first 2 octets. octets, not including the first 2 octets.
Reserved: 8-bit field MUST be set to zero upon transmission and Reserved: 8-bit field MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon reception. ignored upon reception.
IOAM Type: 8-bit field as defined in section 7.2 in IOAM Type: 8-bit field as defined in section 7.2 in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
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.
IPv6 options can have a maximum length of 255 octets. Consequently, IPv6 options can have a maximum length of 255 octets. Consequently,
the total lenght of IOAM Option-Types including all data fields is the total lenght of IOAM Option-Types including all data fields is
also limited to 255 octets when encapsulated into IPv6. also limited to 255 octets when encapsulated into IPv6.
4. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks 5. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks
4.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks 5.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment in IPv6 networks
IOAM deployments in IPv6 networks 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 packets nor the forwarding changes the way routers forward packets nor the forwarding
decisions the routers take. Packets with added OAM information decisions the routers take. Packets with added OAM information
should follow the same path within the domain that an identical should follow the same path within the domain that an identical
packet without OAM information would follow, even in the presence packet without OAM information would follow, even in the presence
of ECMP. Such behavior is particularly important for deployments of ECMP. Such behavior is particularly important for deployments
skipping to change at page 7, line 36 skipping to change at page 8, line 17
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 and did not remove it when the packet traversed across an
Autonomous System (AS). Such a troubleshooting process might Autonomous System (AS). Such a troubleshooting process might
require coordination between multiple operators, complex require coordination between multiple operators, complex
configuration verification, packet capture analysis, etc. configuration verification, packet capture analysis, etc.
C6 Compliance with [RFC8200] requires OAM data to be encapsulated C6 Compliance with [RFC8200] requires OAM data to be encapsulated
instead of header/option insertion directly into in-flight packets instead of header/option insertion directly into in-flight packets
using the original IPv6 header. using the original IPv6 header.
4.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts 5.2. 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 5.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices
For deployments where the IOAM domain is bounded by network devices, For deployments where the IOAM domain is bounded by network devices,
network devices such as routers form the edge of an IOAM domain. network devices such as routers form the edge of an IOAM domain.
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 5.4. 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 5.1.
4.4.1. IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation 5.4.1. IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation
The "IPv6-in-IPv6" approach preserves the original IP packet and add The "IPv6-in-IPv6" approach preserves the original IP packet and add
an IPv6 header including IOAM data fields in an extension header in an IPv6 header including IOAM data fields in an extension header in
front of it, to forward traffic within and across an IOAM domain. front of it, to forward traffic within and across an IOAM domain.
The overlay network formed by the additional IPv6 header with the The overlay network formed by the additional IPv6 header with the
IOAM data fields included in an extension header is referred to as IOAM data fields included in an extension header is referred to as
IOAM Overlay Network (ION) in this document. IOAM Overlay Network (ION) in this document.
The following steps should be taken to perform an IPv6-in-IPv6 The following steps should be taken to perform an IPv6-in-IPv6
approach: approach:
skipping to change at page 8, line 42 skipping to change at page 9, line 20
AS operator that is the source of packets with leaked IOAM AS operator that is the source of packets with leaked IOAM
information. Note that leaked packets with IOAM data fields information. Note that leaked packets with IOAM data fields
would only occur in case a router would be misconfigured. would only occur in case a router would be misconfigured.
3. All the IOAM options are defined with type "00" - skip over this 3. All the IOAM options are defined with type "00" - skip over this
option and continue processing the header. Presence of these option and continue processing the header. Presence of these
options must not cause packet drops in network elements that do options must not cause packet drops in network elements that do
not understand the option. In addition, 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 5.4.2. 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 either an IPv6 or 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 10, line 7
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
egress device failure, the packets' ULA destination address is egress device failure, the packets' ULA destination address is
invalid outside of the IOAM domain. There is no exterior destination invalid outside of the IOAM domain. There is no exterior destination
to be reached, and the packets will be dropped when they encounter to be reached, and the packets will be dropped when they encounter
either a router external to the IOAM domain that has a packet filter either a router external to the IOAM domain that has a packet filter
that drops packets with ULA destinations, or a router that does not that drops packets with ULA destinations, or a router that does not
have a default route. have a default route.
4.4.3. x-in-IPv6 Encapsulation that is used Independently 5.4.3. x-in-IPv6 Encapsulation that is used Independently
In some cases it is desirable to monitor a domain that uses an In some cases it is desirable to monitor a domain that uses an
overlay network that is deployed independently of the need for IOAM, overlay network that is deployed independently of the need for IOAM,
e.g., an overlay network that runs Geneve-in-IPv6, or VXLAN-in-IPv6. e.g., an overlay network that runs Geneve-in-IPv6, or VXLAN-in-IPv6.
In this case IOAM can be encapsulated in as an extension header in In this case IOAM can be encapsulated in as an extension header in
the tunnel (outer) IPv6 header. Thus, the tunnel encapsulating node the tunnel (outer) IPv6 header. Thus, the tunnel encapsulating node
is also the IOAM encapsulating node, and the tunnel end point is also is also the IOAM encapsulating node, and the tunnel end point is also
the IOAM decapsulating node. the IOAM decapsulating node.
5. Security Considerations 6. 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 weakness documented the security considerations of [RFC8200] and the weakness documented
in [RFC8250]. in [RFC8250].
6. IANA Considerations 7. 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
Hex Value Binary Value Description Reference Hex Value Binary Value Description Reference
act chg rest act chg rest
---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
TBD_1_0 00 0 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft] TBD_1_0 00 0 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft]
TBD_1_1 00 1 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft] TBD_1_1 00 1 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft]
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Tom Herbert, Eric Vyncke, Nalini The authors would like to thank Tom Herbert, Eric Vyncke, Nalini
Elkins, Srihari Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra Elkins, Srihari Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra
Babu, Akshaya Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik Babu, Akshaya Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik
Nordmark, LJ Wobker, Mark Smith, Andrew Yourtchenko and Justin Iurman Nordmark, LJ Wobker, Mark Smith, Andrew Yourtchenko and Justin Iurman
for the comments and advice. For the IPv6 encapsulation, this for the comments and advice. For the IPv6 encapsulation, this
document leverages concepts described in document leverages concepts described in
[I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]. The authors would like to [I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]. The authors would like to
acknowledge the work done by the author Hiroshi Kitamura and people acknowledge the work done by the author Hiroshi Kitamura and people
involved in writing it. involved in writing it.
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. 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-14 (work in
progress), November 2020. progress), June 2021.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F., Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct- OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-
export-02 (work in progress), November 2020. export-05 (work in progress), July 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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling] [I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling]
Baker, F. and R. Bonica, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Baker, F. and R. Bonica, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
Extension Header", March 2016. Extension Header", March 2016.
[I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route] [I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]
Kitamura, H., "Record Route for IPv6 (PR6) Hop-by-Hop Kitamura, H., "Record Route for IPv6 (PR6) Hop-by-Hop
Option Extension", draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-route-00 Option Extension", draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-route-00
(work in progress), November 2000. (work in progress), November 2000.
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 12, line 19
[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>.
[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 Contributors' Addresses
Shwetha Bhandari
Thoughtspot
3rd Floor, Indiqube Orion, 24th Main Rd, Garden Layout, HSR Layout
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 102
India
Email: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com
Frank Brockners
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Kaiserswerther Str. 115,
RATINGEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40880
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
John Leddy Carlos Pignataro
Comcast Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Email: John_Leddy@cable.comcast.com Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Stephen Youell John Leddy
JP Morgan Chase Email: john@leddy.net
25 Bank Street
London E14 5JP
United Kingdom
Email: stephen.youell@jpmorgan.com Stephen Youell
JP Morgan Chase
25 Bank Street
London E14 5JP
United Kingdom
Email: stephen.youell@jpmorgan.com
Tal Mizrahi Tal Mizrahi
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
Israel Israel
Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
Aviv Kfir
Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
U.S.A.
Email: avivk@mellanox.com
Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com Barak Gafni
Aviv Kfir Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
Mellanox Technologies, Inc. 350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100 Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Sunnyvale, CA 94085 U.S.A.
U.S.A. Email: gbarak@mellanox.com
Email: avivk@mellanox.com Petr Lapukhov
Facebook
1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
US
Email: petr@fb.com
Barak Gafni Mickey Spiegel
Mellanox Technologies, Inc. Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100 4750 Patrick Henry Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Santa Clara, CA 95054
U.S.A. US
Email: mickey.spiegel@intel.com
Email: gbarak@mellanox.com Suresh Krishnan
Kaloom
Email: suresh@kaloom.com
Petr Lapukhov Rajiv Asati
Facebook Cisco Systems, Inc.
1 Hacker Way 7200 Kit Creek Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US US
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Email: petr@fb.com Mark Smith
PO BOX 521
HEIDELBERG, VIC 3084
AU
Email: markzzzsmith+id@gmail.com
Mickey Spiegel Authors' Addresses
Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
4750 Patrick Henry Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95054
US
Email: mickey.spiegel@intel.com Shwetha Bhandari (editor)
Thoughtspot
3rd Floor, Indiqube Orion, 24th Main Rd, Garden Layout, HSR Layout
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 102
India
Suresh Krishnan Email: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com
Kaloom
Email: suresh@kaloom.com Frank Brockners (editor)
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40549
US Germany
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Mark Smith
PO BOX 521
HEIDELBERG, VIC 3084
AU
Email: markzzzsmith+id@gmail.com Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
150 lines changed or deleted 152 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/