draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini
Intended status: Informational TU Wien Intended status: Informational TU Wien
Expires: October 7, 2018 N. Elkins Expires: November 25, 2018 N. Elkins
Inside Products, Inc. Inside Products, Inc.
M. Ackermann M. Ackermann
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
V. Hegde V. Hegde
Consultant Consultant
April 5, 2018 May 24, 2018
IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04 draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-05
Abstract Abstract
This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC
2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing. 2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing.
It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to
include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimum standard- include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimum standard-
formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets,
referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo
identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements
within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases include, within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases include,
but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, or protocol
encapsulation, IPv6 header compression, or use of IPv6 over Low-Power encapsulation. IPv6 header compression and use of IPv6 over Low-
Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN). Power Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN) are considered and excluded
from the standard-formed packet evaluation.
Requirements Language 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] and updated
by [RFC8174].
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 October 7, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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.
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 Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 8 5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a
framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has
stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental
metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition
[RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement [RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement
of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312]. of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312].
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 4, line 7
value of the metric depends on characteristics of the IP packet(s) value of the metric depends on characteristics of the IP packet(s)
used to make the measurement. Potential influencing factors include used to make the measurement. Potential influencing factors include
IP header fields and their values, but also higher-layer protocol IP header fields and their values, but also higher-layer protocol
headers and their values. Consider an IP-connectivity metric: one headers and their values. Consider an IP-connectivity metric: one
obtains different results depending on whether one is interested in obtains different results depending on whether one is interested in
connectivity for packets destined for well-known TCP ports or connectivity for packets destined for well-known TCP ports or
unreserved UDP ports, or those with invalid IPv4 checksums, or those unreserved UDP ports, or those with invalid IPv4 checksums, or those
with TTL or Hop Limit of 16, for example. In some circumstances with TTL or Hop Limit of 16, for example. In some circumstances
these distinctions will result in special treatment of packets in these distinctions will result in special treatment of packets in
intermediate nodes and end systems (for example, if Diffserv intermediate nodes and end systems (for example, if Diffserv
[RFC2780], ECN [RFC3168], Router Alert, Hop-by-hop extensions [RFC2474], ECN [RFC3168], Router Alert, Hop-by-hop extensions
[RFC7045], or Flow Labels [RFC6437] are used, or in the presence of [RFC7045], or Flow Labels [RFC6437] are used, or in the presence of
firewalls or RSVP reservations). firewalls or RSVP reservations).
Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a Because of this distinction, we introduce the generic notion of a
"packet of Type-P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly "packet of Type-P", where in some contexts P will be explicitly
defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially defined (i.e., exactly what type of packet we mean), partially
defined (e.g., "with a payload of B octets"), or left generic. Thus 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- we may talk about generic IP-Type-P-connectivity or more specific IP-
port-HTTP-connectivity. Some metrics and methodologies may be port-HTTP-connectivity. Some metrics and methodologies may be
fruitfully defined using generic Type-P definitions which are then fruitfully defined using generic Type-P definitions which are then
skipping to change at page 5, line 20 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
(alternatively: its class C specific treatment in terms of header (alternatively: its class C specific treatment in terms of header
fields in scope of hash operations) is therefore a prerequisite for fields in scope of hash operations) is therefore a prerequisite for
repeatable measurements. A path may have more than one stage of load repeatable measurements. A path may have more than one stage of load
balancing, adding to class C definition complexity. balancing, adding to class C definition complexity.
4. Standard-Formed Packets 4. Standard-Formed Packets
Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP Unless otherwise stated, all metric definitions that concern IP
packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard- packets include an implicit assumption that the packet is *standard-
formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following formed*. A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following
criteria: REQUIRED criteria:
+ It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific + It includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific
criteria. criteria.
+ It is not an IP fragment. + It is not an IP fragment.
+ The Source and Destination addresses correspond to the intended + The Source and Destination addresses correspond to the intended
Source and Destination, including Multicast Destination addresses. Source and Destination, including Multicast Destination addresses.
+ If a transport header is present, it contains a valid checksum and + If a transport header is present, it contains a valid checksum and
other valid fields. other valid fields.
For an IPv4 ( [RFC0791] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, For an IPv4 ([RFC0791] and updates) packet to be standard-formed, the
the following additional criteria are REQUIRED: following additional criteria are REQUIRED:
o The version field is 4 o The version field is 4
o The Internet Header Length (IHL) value is >= 5; the checksum is o The Internet Header Length (IHL) value is >= 5; the checksum is
correct. correct.
o Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the o Its total length as given in the IPv4 header corresponds to the
size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload. size of the IPv4 header plus the size of the payload.
o Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the o Either the packet possesses sufficient TTL to travel from the
Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each Source to the Destination if the TTL is decremented by one at each
hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255. hop, or it possesses the maximum TTL of 255.
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 6, line 48
in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters, partly specified in [IANA-6P]. Parameters, partly specified in [IANA-6P].
Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard- Two mechanisms require some discussion in the context of standard-
formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks formed packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks
(6LowPAN, [RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]). (6LowPAN, [RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]).
IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in
[RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and [RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and
[RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations proposes solutions [RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations proposes solutions
for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments. An adaptation for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments. An adaptation
layer enables the transfer IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU layer enables the transfer of IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU
smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of
IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that would be stored in IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that would be stored in
intermediate nodes, poses substantial challenges to measurements. intermediate nodes, poses substantial challenges to measurements.
Likewise, ROHC operates stateful in compressing headers on subpaths,
storing state in intermediate hosts. The modification of measurement Likewise, ROHC operates statefully in compressing headers on
packets' Type-P by ROHC and 6LowPAN, as well as requirements with subpaths, storing state in intermediate hosts. The modification of
respect to the concept of standard-formed packets for these two measurement packets' Type-P by ROHC and 6LowPAN, as well as
protocols requires substantial work. Because of these reasons we requirements with respect to the concept of standard-formed packets
consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope of this for these two protocols requires substantial work. Because of these
document. reasons we consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope
for the standard-formed packet evaluation.
The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into
focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use
cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM in cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM
enterprise environments or IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] in enterprise environments can benefit from
(PDM) Destination Option measurements [RFC8250] can benefit from
inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension
headers in hosts along the measurement path. headers in hosts along the measurement path.
As a particular use case, hosts on the path may store sending and [RFC8250] endorses the use of IPv6 extension headers for measurement
intermediate timestamps into dedicated extension headers to support purposes, consistent with other approved IETF specifications.
measurements, monitoring, auditing, or reproducibility in critical
environments. [RFC8250] endorses the use and manipulation of IPv6
extension headers for measurement purposes, consistent with other
approved IETF specifications.
The following additional considerations apply when IPv6 Extension The following additional considerations apply when IPv6 Extension
Headers are present: Headers are present:
o Extension Header inspection: Some intermediate nodes may inspect o Extension Header inspection: Some intermediate nodes may inspect
Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit. In Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit. In
exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a sub- exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a sub-
optimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or unrepeatable. optimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or unrepeatable.
The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed, with a The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed, with a
corresponding Type-P. corresponding Type-P.
o Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV o Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV
encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes
while in transit. The resulting packet may be standard-formed, while in transit. The resulting packet may be standard-formed,
with a corresponding Type-P. with a corresponding Type-P.
o Extension Header insertion or deletion: It is possible that o Extension Header insertion or deletion: Although such behavior is
Extension Headers could be added to, or removed from the header not endorsed by current standards, it is possible that Extension
chain. The resulting packet may be standard-formed, with a Headers could be added to, or removed from the header chain. The
corresponding Type-P. resulting packet may be standard-formed, with a corresponding
Type-P.
o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed
at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in
Internet measurement, and REQUIRES a new Type-P to be reported. 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 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 of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload
length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets, length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets,
including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in
[RFC2675] are not covered by the above length analysis, but if the [RFC2675] are not covered by the above length analysis, but if the
IPv6 Jumbogram Payload Hop-by-Hop Option Header is present, then a IPv6 Jumbogram Payload Hop-by-Hop Option Header is present, then a
packet with corresponding length MUST be considered standard-formed. packet with corresponding length MUST be considered standard-formed.
In practice, the path MTU will restrict the length of standard-formed In practice, the path MTU will restrict the length of standard-formed
packets that can successfully traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery packets that can successfully traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6 (PMTUD, [RFC8201]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU for IP version 6 (PMTUD, [RFC8201]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery (PLPMTUD, [RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent Discovery (PLPMTUD, [RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent
fragmentation (or ICMP error messages) as a result of IPv6 extension fragmentation.
header manipulation.
So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP connectivity metric So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP connectivity metric
as "IP-type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP as "IP-type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP
Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly, "IP-type- Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly, "IP-type-
P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv Field set to 0", since standard- P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv Field set to 0", since standard-
formed is already implied by convention. Changing the contents of a formed is already implied by convention. Changing the contents of a
field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or Flow Label may field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or Flow Label may
have a profound affect on packet handling during transit, but does have a profound affect on packet handling during transit, but does
not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. Likewise, the not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. Likewise, the
addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change
skipping to change at page 8, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 52
The definition and execution of measurements within the context of The definition and execution of measurements within the context of
the IPPM Framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms the IPPM Framework is challenged whenever such translation mechanisms
are present along the measurement path. In particular use cases like are present along the measurement path. In particular use cases like
IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, or IPv6 header
compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's compression may result in modification of the measurement packet's
Type-P along the path. All these changes MUST be reported. Type-P along the path. All these changes MUST be reported.
Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to: Exemplary consequences include, but are not limited to:
o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in o Modification or addition of headers or header field values in
intermediate nodes. As noted in Section 4 for IPv6 extension intermediate nodes. IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header
header manipulation, NAT, IPv4-IPv6 transitioning or IPv6 header
compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement compression mechanisms may result in changes of the measurement
packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement packets' Type-P, too. Consequently, hosts along the measurement
path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P path may treat packets differently because of the Type-P
modification. Measurements at observation points along the path modification. Measurements at observation points along the path
may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet. may also need extra context to uniquely identify a packet.
o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have o Network Address Translators (NAT) on the path can have
unpredictable impact on latency measurement (in terms of the unpredictable impact on latency measurement (in terms of the
amount of additional time added), and possibly other types of amount of additional time added), and possibly other types of
measurements. It is not usually possible to control this impact measurements. It is not usually possible to control this impact
skipping to change at page 10, line 36 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
[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>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. <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", [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999, RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.
[RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., [RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095, ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095,
July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3095>. July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3095>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
skipping to change at page 12, line 41 skipping to change at page 13, line 10
[RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address [RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address
Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757, Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.
[RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont, [RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
"IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>. <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 [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>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., [RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-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", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-02 (work in progress), March 2018.
[IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) [IANA-6P] IANA, "IANA Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Parameters", Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters, January
2018. 2018.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 69 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/