Tech-invite  3GPPspecsRELsGlossariesSIPRFCs
8887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100

in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 8468

IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence: Updates for the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework

Pages: 15
Informational
Updates:  2330

Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. Morton
Request for Comments: 8468                                     AT&T Labs
Updates: 2330                                                  J. Fabini
Category: Informational                                          TU Wien
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                N. Elkins
                                                   Inside Products, Inc.
                                                            M. Ackermann
                                      Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
                                                                V. Hegde
                                                              Consultant
                                                           November 2018


                 IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence:
        Updates for the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework

Abstract

This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework defined by RFC 2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing. It updates the definition of standard-formed packets to include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimal IP packet, and augments distinguishing aspects, referred to as Type-P, for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo identifies that IPv4-IPv6 coexistence can challenge measurements within the scope of the IPPM framework. Example use cases include, but are not limited to, IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, and protocol encapsulation. IPv6 header compression and use of IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN) are considered and excluded from the standard-formed packet evaluation. Status of This Memo This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8468.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition, and Compression Techniques . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 3

1. Introduction

The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition [RFC5835] and in several areas related to active stream measurement of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312]. The IPPM framework [RFC2330] recognized (in Section 13) that many aspects of an IP packet can influence its processing during transfer across the network. In Section 15 of [RFC2330], the notion of a "standard-formed" packet is defined. However, the definition was never expanded to include IPv6, even though the authors of [RFC2330] explicitly identified the need for this update in Section 15: "the version field is 4 (later, we will expand this to include 6)". In particular, IPv6 Extension Headers and protocols that use IPv6 header compression are growing in use. This memo seeks to provide the needed updates to the original definition in [RFC2330].

2. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Scope

The purpose of this memo is to expand the coverage of IPPM to include IPv6, highlight additional aspects of test packets, and make them part of the IPPM framework. The scope is to update key sections of [RFC2330], adding considerations that will aid the development of new measurement methodologies intended for today's IP networks. Specifically, this memo expands the Type-P examples in Section 13 of [RFC2330] and expands the definition (in Section 15 of [RFC2330]) of a standard- formed packet to include IPv6 header aspects and other features. Other topics in [RFC2330] that might be updated or augmented are deferred to future work. This includes the topics of passive and various forms of hybrid active/passive measurements.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 4

4. Packets of Type-P

A fundamental property of many Internet metrics is that the measured value of the metric depends on characteristics of the IP packet(s) used to make the measurement. Potential influencing factors include IP header fields and their values, as well as higher-layer protocol headers and their values. Consider an IP-connectivity metric: one obtains different results depending on whether one is interested in, for example, connectivity for packets destined for well-known TCP ports or unreserved UDP ports, those with invalid IPv4 checksums, or those with TTL or Hop Limit of 16. In some circumstances, these distinctions will result in special treatment of packets in intermediate nodes and end systems -- for example, if Diffserv [RFC2474], Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168], Router Alert [RFC6398], Hop-by-Hop extensions [RFC7045], or Flow Labels [RFC6437] are used, or in the presence of firewalls or RSVP reservations. Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a "packet of Type-P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially defined (e.g., "with a payload of B octets"), or left generic. Thus, we may talk about generic IP-Type-P-connectivity or more specific IP-port-HTTP-connectivity. Some metrics and methodologies may be fruitfully defined using generic Type-P definitions, which are then made specific when performing actual measurements. Whenever a metric's value depends on the type of the packets involved, the metric's name will include either a specific type or a phrase such as "Type-P". Thus, we will not define an "IP-connectivity" metric but instead an "IP-Type-P-connectivity" metric and/or perhaps an "IP-port-HTTP-connectivity" metric. This naming convention serves as an important reminder that one must be conscious of the exact type of traffic being measured. If the information constituting Type-P at the Source is found to have changed at the Destination (or at a measurement point between the Source and Destination, as in [RFC5644]), then the modified values MUST be noted and reported with the results. Some modifications occur according to the conditions encountered in transit (such as congestion notification) or due to the requirements of segments of the Source-to-Destination path. For example, the packet length will change if IP headers are converted to the alternate version/address family or optional Extension Headers are added or removed. Even header fields like TTL/Hop Limit that typically change in transit may be relevant to specific tests. For example, Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) [RFC4861] packets are transmitted with the Hop Limit value set to 255, and the validity test specifies that the Hop Limit
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 5
   MUST have a value of 255 at the receiver, too.  So, while other tests
   may intentionally exclude the TTL/Hop Limit value from their Type-P
   definition, for this particular test, the correct Hop Limit value is
   of high relevance and MUST be part of the Type-P definition.

   Local policies in intermediate nodes based on examination of IPv6
   Extension Headers may affect measurement repeatability.  If
   intermediate nodes follow the recommendations of [RFC7045],
   repeatability may be improved to some degree.

   A closely related note: It would be very useful to know if a given
   Internet component (like a host, link, or path) treats equally a
   class C of different types of packets.  If so, then any one of those
   types of packets can be used for subsequent measurement of the
   component.  This suggests we should devise a metric or suite of
   metrics that attempt to determine class C (a designation that has no
   relationship to address assignments, of course).

   Load-balancing over parallel paths is one particular example where
   such a class C would be more complex to determine in IPPM
   measurements.  Load balancers and routers often use flow identifiers,
   computed as hashes (of specific parts) of the packet header, for
   deciding among the available parallel paths a packet will traverse.
   Packets with identical hashes are assigned to the same flow and
   forwarded to the same resource in the load balancer's (or router's)
   pool.  The presence of a load balancer on the measurement path, as
   well as the specific headers and fields that are used for the
   forwarding decision, are not known when measuring the path as a black
   box.  Potential assessment scenarios include the measurement of one
   of the parallel paths, and the measurement of all available parallel
   paths that the load balancer can use.  Therefore, knowledge of a load
   balancer's flow definition (alternatively, its class-C-specific
   treatment in terms of header fields in scope of hash operations) is a
   prerequisite for repeatable measurements.  A path may have more than
   one stage of load-balancing, adding to class C definition complexity.

5. Standard-Formed Packets

Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is standard- formed. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following REQUIRED criteria: + It includes a valid IP header. See below for version-specific criteria. + It is not an IP fragment.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 6
   +  The Source and Destination addresses correspond to the intended
      Source and Destination, including Multicast Destination addresses.

   +  If a transport header is present, it contains a valid checksum and
      other valid fields.

   For an IPv4 packet (as specified in [RFC791] and the RFCs that update
   it) to be standard-formed, the following additional criteria are
   REQUIRED:

   o  The version field is 4.

   o  The Internet Header Length (IHL) value is >= 5; the checksum is
      correct.

   o  Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the
      size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload.

   o  Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the
      Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each
      hop or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.

   o  It does not contain IP options unless explicitly noted.

   For an IPv6 packet (as specified in [RFC8200] and any future updates)
   to be standard-formed, the following criteria are REQUIRED:

   o  The version field is 6.

   o  Its total length corresponds to the size of the IPv6 header (40
      octets) plus the length of the payload as given in the IPv6
      header.

   o  The payload length value for this packet (including Extension
      Headers) conforms to the IPv6 specifications.

   o  Either the packet possesses sufficient Hop Limit to travel from
      the Source to the Destination if the Hop Limit is decremented by
      one at each hop or it possesses the maximum Hop Limit of 255.

   o  Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers or it
      contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in
      the packet and the headers appear in the standard-conforming order
      (Next Header).

   o  All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found
      in the "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry
      specified in [IANA-6P].
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 7
   Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard-
   formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
   (6LowPAN) [RFC4944] and Robust Header Compression (ROHC) [RFC3095].
   6LowPAN, as defined in [RFC4944] and updated by [RFC6282] with header
   compression and [RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations,
   proposes solutions for using IPv6 in resource-constrained
   environments.  An adaptation layer enables the transfer of IPv6
   packets over networks having an MTU smaller than the minimum IPv6
   MTU.  Fragmentation and reassembly of IPv6 packets, as well as the
   resulting state that would be stored in intermediate nodes, poses
   substantial challenges to measurements.  Likewise, ROHC operates
   statefully in compressing headers on subpaths, storing state in
   intermediate hosts.  The modification of measurement packets' Type-P
   by ROHC and 6LowPAN requires substantial work, as do requirements
   with respect to the concept of standard-formed packets for these two
   protocols.  For these reasons, we consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets
   to be out of the scope of the standard-formed packet evaluation.

   The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into
   focus, as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045].  However, measurement use
   cases in the context of the IPPM framework, such as in situ OAM
   [IOAM-DATA] in enterprise environments, can benefit from inspection,
   modification, addition, or deletion of IPv6 extension headers in
   hosts along the measurement path.

   [RFC8250] endorses the use of the IPv6 Destination Option for
   measurement purposes, consistent with other relevant and approved
   IETF specifications.

   The following additional considerations apply when IPv6 Extension
   Headers are present:

   o  Extension Header inspection: Some intermediate nodes may inspect
      Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit.  In
      exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a
      suboptimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or
      unrepeatable.  The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed,
      with a corresponding Type-P.

   o  Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV-
      encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes
      while in transit.  The resulting packet may be standard-formed,
      with a corresponding Type-P.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 8
   o  Extension Header insertion or deletion: Although such behavior is
      not endorsed by current standards, it is possible that Extension
      Headers could be added to, or removed from, the header chain.  The
      resulting packet may be standard-formed, with a corresponding
      Type-P.  This point simply encourages measurement system designers
      to be prepared for the unexpected and notify users when such
      events occur.  There are issues with Extension Header insertion
      and deletion, of course, such as exceeding the path MTU due to
      insertion, etc.

   o  A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed
      at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in
      Internet measurement and REQUIRES a new Type-P to be reported with
      the test results.

   It is further REQUIRED that if a packet is described as having a
   "length of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload
   length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets,
   including any Extension Headers).  The jumbograms defined in
   [RFC2675] are not covered by the above length analysis, but if the
   IPv6 Jumbogram Payload Hop-by-Hop Option Header is present, then a
   packet with corresponding length MUST be considered standard-formed.
   In practice, the path MTU will restrict the length of standard-formed
   packets that can successfully traverse the path.  Path MTU Discovery
   for IP version 6 (PMTUD, [RFC8201]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU
   Discovery (PLPMTUD, [RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent
   fragmentation.

   So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP-connectivity metric
   as "IP-Type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP
   Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly,
   "IP-Type-P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv field set to 0", since
   standard-formed is already implied by convention.  Changing the
   contents of a field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or
   Flow Label may have a profound effect on packet handling during
   transit, but does not affect a packet's status as standard-formed.
   Likewise, the addition, modification, or deletion of extension
   headers may change the handling of packets in transit hosts.

   [RFC2330] defines the "minimal IP packet from A to B" as a particular
   type of standard-formed packet often useful to consider.  When
   defining IP metrics, no packet smaller or simpler than this can be
   transmitted over a correctly operating IP network.  However, the
   concept of the minimal IP packet has not been employed (since typical
   active measurement systems employ a transport layer and a payload),
   and its practical use is limited.  Therefore, this memo deprecates
   the concept of the "minimal IP packet from A to B".
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 9

6. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition, and Compression Techniques

This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two critical conventions of the IPPM framework, namely packets of Type-P and standard-formed packets. The need for coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6 has originated transitioning standards like the framework for IPv4/IPv6 translation in [RFC6144] or the IP/ICMP translation algorithms in [RFC7915] and [RFC7757]. The definition and execution of measurements within the context of the IPPM framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms are present along the measurement path. In use cases like IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's Type-P along the path. All these changes MUST be reported. Example consequences include, but are not limited to: o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in intermediate nodes. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P modification. Measurements at observation points along the path may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet. o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have an unpredictable impact on latency measurement (in terms of the amount of additional time added) and possibly other types of measurements. It is not usually possible to control this impact as testers may not have any control of the underlying network or middleboxes. There is a possibility that stateful NAT will lead to unstable performance for a flow with specific Type-P, since state needs to be created for the first packet of a flow and state may be lost later if the NAT runs out of resources. However, this scenario does not invalidate the Type-P for testing; for example, the purpose of a test might be exactly to quantify the NAT's impact on delay variation. The presence of NAT may mean that the measured performance of Type-P will change between the source and the destination. This can cause an issue when attempting to correlate measurements conducted on segments of the path that include or exclude the NAT. Thus, it is a factor to be aware of when conducting measurements.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 10
   o  Variable delay due to internal state.  One side effect of changes
      due to IPv4-IPv6 transitioning mechanisms is the variable delay
      that intermediate nodes experience for header modifications.
      Similar to NAT, the allocation of internal state and establishment
      of context within intermediate nodes may cause variable delays,
      depending on the measurement stream pattern and position of a
      packet within the stream.  For example, the first packet in a
      stream will typically trigger allocation of internal state in an
      intermediate IPv4-IPv6 transition host.  Subsequent packets can
      benefit from lower processing delay due to the existing internal
      state.  However, large interpacket delays in the measurement
      stream may result in the intermediate host deleting the associated
      state and needing to re-establish it on arrival of another stream
      packet.  It is worth noting that this variable delay due to
      internal state allocation in intermediate nodes can be an explicit
      use case for measurements.

   o  Variable delay due to packet length.  IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or
      header compression mechanisms modify the length of measurement
      packets.  The modification of the packet size may or may not
      change how the measurement path treats the packets.

7. Security Considerations

The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of live paths are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and [RFC5357]. When considering the privacy of those involved in measurement or those whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques that are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer the reader to the privacy considerations described in the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) framework [RFC7594], which covers active and passive techniques.

8. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 11

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>. [RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095, July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3095>. [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 12
   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.

   [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and
              J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
              (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.

   [RFC5644]  Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
              Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.

   [RFC5835]  Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for
              Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April
              2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>.

   [RFC6144]  Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
              IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.

   [RFC6282]  Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
              Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.

   [RFC6398]  Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
              Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, DOI 10.17487/RFC6398, October
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.

   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 13
   [RFC6564]  Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
              M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
              RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.

   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and
              C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
              Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
              RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.

   [RFC7045]  Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
              of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.

   [RFC7312]  Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
              Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.

   [RFC7757]  Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address
              Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.

   [RFC7915]  Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
              "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8201]  McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 14
   [RFC8250]  Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
              Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
              Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.

9.2. Informative References

[IANA-6P] IANA, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters>. [IOAM-DATA] Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov, P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon, "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-03, June 2018. [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Brian Carpenter for identifying the lack of IPv6 coverage in IPPM's framework and listing additional distinguishing factors for packets of Type-P. Both Brian and Fred Baker discussed many of the interesting aspects of IPv6 with the coauthors, leading to a more solid first draft: thank you both. Thanks to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text. As we completed our journey, Nevil Brownlee, Mike Heard, Spencer Dawkins, Warren Kumari, and Suresh Krishnan all contributed useful suggestions.
Top   ToC   RFC8468 - Page 15

Authors' Addresses

Al Morton AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown, NJ 07748 United States of America Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 Email: acm@researh.att.com Joachim Fabini TU Wien Gusshausstrasse 25/E389 Vienna 1040 Austria Phone: +43 1 58801 38813 Fax: +43 1 58801 38898 Email: Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at URI: http://www.tc.tuwien.ac.at/about-us/staff/joachim-fabini/ Nalini Elkins Inside Products, Inc. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 United States of America Email: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com Michael S. Ackermann Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Email: mackermann@bcbsm.com Vinayak Hegde Consultant Brahma Sun City, Wadgaon-Sheri Pune, Maharashtra 411014 India Phone: +91 9449834401 Email: vinayakh@gmail.com URI: http://www.vinayakhegde.com