RFC 9359
Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities
Pages: ~17
IETF/tsv/ippm/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10
Proposed Standard
Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities
Abstract
This document describes a generic format for use in echo request/reply mechanisms, which can be used within an IOAM-Domain, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The generic format is intended to be used with a variety of data planes such as IPv6, MPLS, Service Function Chain (SFC), and Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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). Further information on Internet Standards is available in 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/rfc9359 .
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
1. Introduction
In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) ([RFC 9197] [RFC 9326]) defines data fields that record OAM information within the packet while the packet traverses a particular network domain, called an "IOAM-Domain". IOAM can complement or replace other OAM mechanisms, such as ICMP or other types of probe packets.
As specified in [RFC 9197], within the IOAM-Domain, the IOAM data may be updated by network nodes that the packet traverses. The device that adds an IOAM header to the packet is called an "IOAM encapsulating node". In contrast, the device that removes an IOAM header is referred to as an "IOAM decapsulating node". Nodes within the domain that are aware of IOAM data and that read, write, and/or process IOAM data are called "IOAM transit nodes". IOAM encapsulating or decapsulating nodes can also serve as IOAM transit nodes at the same time. IOAM encapsulating or decapsulating nodes are also referred to as IOAM-Domain "edge devices", which can be hosts or network devices. [RFC 9197] defines four IOAM option types, and [RFC 9326] introduces a new IOAM option type called the "Direct Export (DEX) Option-Type", which is different from the other four IOAM option types defined in [RFC 9197] regarding how to collect the operational and telemetry information defined in [RFC 9197].
As specified in [RFC 9197], IOAM is focused on "limited domains" as defined in [RFC 8799]. In a limited domain, a control entity that has control over every IOAM device may be deployed. If that's the case, the control entity can provision both the explicit transport path and the IOAM header applied to the data packet at every IOAM encapsulating node.
In a case when a control entity that has control over every IOAM device is not deployed in the IOAM-Domain, the IOAM encapsulating node needs to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM transit and decapsulating nodes: for example, what types of IOAM tracing data can be added or exported by the transit nodes along the transport path of the data packet IOAM is applied to. The IOAM encapsulating node can then add the correct IOAM header to the data packet according to the discovered IOAM capabilities. Specifically, the IOAM encapsulating node first identifies the types and lengths of IOAM options included in the IOAM data fields according to the discovered IOAM capabilities. Then the IOAM encapsulating node can add the IOAM header to the data packet based on the identified types and lengths of IOAM options included in the IOAM data fields. The IOAM encapsulating node may use NETCONF/YANG or IGP to discover these IOAM capabilities. However, NETCONF/YANG or IGP has some limitations:
- When NETCONF/YANG is used in this scenario, each IOAM encapsulating node (including the host when it takes the role of an IOAM encapsulating node) needs to implement a NETCONF Client, and each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node (including the host when it takes the role of an IOAM decapsulating node) needs to implement a NETCONF Server, so complexity can be an issue. Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish a NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node, so scalability can be an issue.
- When IGP is used in this scenario, the IGP and IOAM-Domains don't always have the same coverage. For example, when the IOAM encapsulating node or the IOAM decapsulating node is a host, the availability can be an issue. Furthermore, it might be too challenging to reflect enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node if these are controlled by a local policy depending on the identity of the IOAM encapsulating node.
- "[Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification]" [RFC 4443]
- "[IPv6 Node Information Queries]" [RFC 4620]
- "[Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages]" [RFC 4884]
- "[PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces]" [RFC 8335]
- "[Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures]" [RFC 8029]
- "[Active OAM for Service Function Chaining (SFC)]" [OAM-for-SFC]
- "[BIER Ping and Trace]" [BIER-PING]
2. Conventions
2.1. 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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
- BIER:
- Bit Index Explicit Replication
- BGP:
- Border Gateway Protocol
- DEX:
- Direct Export
- ECMP:
- Equal-Cost Multipath
- E2E:
- Edge to Edge
- ICMP:
- Internet Control Message Protocol
- IGP:
- Interior Gateway Protocol
- IOAM:
- In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
- LSP:
- Label Switched Path
- MPLS:
- Multiprotocol Label Switching
- MTU:
- Maximum Transmission Unit
- NETCONF:
- Network Configuration Protocol
- NTP:
- Network Time Protocol
- OAM:
- Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
- PCEP:
- Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
- POSIX:
- Portable Operating System Interface
- POT:
- Proof of Transit
- PTP:
- Precision Time Protocol
- SoP:
- Size of POT
- SR-MPLS:
- Segment Routing over MPLS
- SRv6:
- Segment Routing over IPv6
- SFC:
- Service Function Chain
- TTL:
- Time to Live (this is also the Hop Limit field in the IPv6 header)
- TSF:
- TimeStamp Format
3. IOAM Capabilities Formats
3.1. IOAM Capabilities Query Container
For echo requests, the IOAM Capabilities Query uses a container that has the following format:
When this container is present in the echo request sent by an IOAM encapsulating node, the IOAM encapsulating node requests that the receiving node reply with its enabled IOAM capabilities. If there is no IOAM capability to be reported by the receiving node, then this container MUST be ignored by the receiving node. This means the receiving node MUST send an echo reply without IOAM capabilities or no echo reply, in the light of whether the echo request includes containers other than the IOAM Capabilities Query Container. A list of IOAM Namespace-IDs (one or more Namespace-IDs) MUST be included in this container in the echo request; if present, the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000 MUST be placed at the beginning of the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs. The IOAM encapsulating node requests only the enabled IOAM capabilities that match one of the Namespace-IDs. Inclusion of the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000 elicits replies only for capabilities that are configured with the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000. The Namespace-ID has the same definition as what's specified in Section 4.3 of RFC 9197.
The IOAM Capabilities Query Container has a container header that is used to identify the type and, optionally, the length of the container payload. The container payload (List of IOAM Namespace-IDs) is zero-padded to align with a 4-octet boundary. Since the Default-Namespace-ID 0x0000 is mandated to appear first in the list, any other occurrences of 0x0000 MUST be disregarded.
The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities Query Container Header depend on the specific deployment environment.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . IOAM Capabilities Query Container Header . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . List of IOAM Namespace-IDs . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2. IOAM Capabilities Response Container
For echo replies, the IOAM Capabilities Response uses a container that has the following format:
When this container is present in the echo reply sent by an IOAM transit node or IOAM decapsulating node, the IOAM function is enabled at this node, and this container contains the enabled IOAM capabilities of the sender. A list of IOAM capabilities objects (one or more objects) that contains the enabled IOAM capabilities MUST be included in this container of the echo reply unless the sender encounters an error (e.g., no matched Namespace-ID).
The IOAM Capabilities Response Container has a container header that is used to identify the type and, optionally, the length of the container payload. The container header MUST be defined such that it falls on a 4-octet boundary.
The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities Response Container Header depends on the specific deployment environment.
Based on the IOAM data fields defined in [RFC 9197] and [RFC 9326], six types of objects are defined in this document. The same type of object MAY be present in the IOAM Capabilities Response Container more than once, only if listed with a different Namespace-ID.
Similar to the container, each object has an object header that is used to identify the type and length of the object payload. The object payload MUST be defined such that it falls on a 4-octet boundary.
The length, structure, and definition of the object header depends on the specific deployment environment.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . IOAM Capabilities Response Container Header . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . List of IOAM Capabilities Objects . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object Header . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.2. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object Header . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.3. IOAM Proof of Transit Capabilities Object
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . IOAM Proof of Transit Capabilities Object Header . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Namespace-ID | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- 0b00:
- 64-bit "PktID" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data
- 0b01~0b11:
- reserved for future standardization
3.2.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object Header . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Namespace-ID | IOAM-E2E-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TSF| Reserved | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- 0b00:
- PTP truncated timestamp format
- 0b01:
- NTP 64-bit timestamp format
- 0b10:
- POSIX-based timestamp format
- 0b11:
- Reserved for future standardization
3.2.5. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . IOAM DEX Capabilities Object Header . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Namespace-ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.6. IOAM End-of-Domain Object
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . IOAM End-of-Domain Object Header . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Namespace-ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4. Operational Guide
Once the IOAM encapsulating node is triggered to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node, the IOAM encapsulating node will send echo requests that include the IOAM Capabilities Query Container as follows:
- First, with TTL equal to 1 to reach the closest node (which may or may not be an IOAM transit node).
- Then, with TTL equal to 2 to reach the second-nearest node (which also may or may not be an IOAM transit node).
- Then, further increasing by 1 the TTL every time the IOAM encapsulating node sends a new echo request, until the IOAM encapsulating node receives an echo reply sent by the IOAM decapsulating node (which contains the IOAM Capabilities Response Container including the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object or the IOAM End-of-Domain Object).
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has created a registry named "In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities".
This registry includes the following subregistries:
- IOAM SoP Capability
- IOAM TSF Capability
5.1. IOAM SoP Capability Registry
This registry defines four codepoints for the IOAM SoP Capability field for identifying the size of "PktID" and "Cumulative" data as explained in Section 4.5 of RFC 9197.
A new entry in this registry requires the following fields:
Table 1: SoP and Description
0b01 - 0b11 are available for assignment via the IETF Review process as per [RFC 8126].
- SoP (Size of POT): a 2-bit binary field as defined in Section 3.2.3.
- Description: a terse description of the meaning of this SoP value.
| SoP | Description |
|---|---|
| 0b00 | 64-bit "PktID" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data |
5.2. IOAM TSF Capability Registry
This registry defines four codepoints for the IOAM TSF Capability field for identifying the timestamp format as explained in Section 5 of RFC 9197.
A new entry in this registry requires the following fields:
Table 2: TSF and Description
0b11 is available for assignment via the IETF Review process as per [RFC 8126].
- TSF (TimeStamp Format): a 2-bit binary field as defined in Section 3.2.4.
- Description: a terse description of the meaning of this TSF value.
| TSF | Description |
|---|---|
| 0b00 | PTP Truncated Timestamp Format |
| 0b01 | NTP 64-bit Timestamp Format |
| 0b10 | POSIX-based Timestamp Format |
6. Security Considerations
Overall, the security needs for IOAM capabilities query mechanisms used in different environments are similar.
To avoid potential Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations apply rate-limiting to incoming echo requests and replies.
To protect against unauthorized sources using echo request messages to obtain IOAM Capabilities information, implementations MUST provide a means of checking the source addresses of echo request messages against an access list before accepting the message.
A deployment MUST ensure that border-filtering drops inbound echo requests with an IOAM Capabilities Container Header from outside of the domain and that drops outbound echo requests or replies with IOAM Capabilities Headers leaving the domain.
A deployment MUST support the configuration option to enable or disable the IOAM Capabilities Discovery feature defined in this document. By default, the IOAM Capabilities Discovery feature MUST be disabled.
The integrity protection on IOAM Capabilities information carried in echo reply messages can be achieved by the underlying transport. For example, if the environment is an IPv6 network, the IP Authentication Header [RFC 4302] or IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC 4303] can be used.
The collected IOAM Capabilities information by queries may be considered confidential. An implementation can use secure underlying transport of echo requests or replies to provide privacy protection. For example, if the environment is an IPv6 network, confidentiality can be achieved by using the IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC 4303].
An implementation can also directly secure the data carried in echo requests and replies if needed, the specific mechanism on how to secure the data is beyond the scope of this document.
An implementation can also check whether the fields in received echo requests and replies strictly conform to the specifications, e.g., whether the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs includes duplicate entries and whether the received Namespace-ID is an operator-assigned or IANA-assigned one, once a check fails, an exception event indicating the checked field should be reported to the management.
Except for what's described above, the security issues discussed in [RFC 9197] provide good guidance on implementation of this specification.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
S. Bradner, "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 - [RFC8126]
-
M. Cotton, B. Leiba, and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8126 - [RFC8174]
-
B. Leiba, "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 - [RFC9197]
-
F. Brockners, S. Bhandari, and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197, May 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc9197 - [RFC9326]
-
H. Song, B. Gafni, F. Brockners, S. Bhandari, and T. Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326, DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc9326
7.2. Informative References
-
[BIER-PING]
-
Ericsson, N. K. Nainar, C. Pignataro, N. Akiya, L. Zheng, M. Chen, and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-bier-ping-08, March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ >.html/ draft-ietf-bier-ping-08 -
[OAM-for-SFC]
-
Verizon Inc., G. Mirsky, W. Meng, T. Ao, B. Khasnabish, K. Leung, and G. Mishra, "Active OAM for Service Function Chaining (SFC)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-23, March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ >.html/ draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-23 - [RFC4302]
-
S. Kent, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc4302 - [RFC4303]
-
S. Kent, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc4303 - [RFC4443]
-
A. Conta, S. Deering, and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc4443 - [RFC4620]
-
M. Crawford, and B. Haberman, "IPv6 Node Information Queries", RFC 4620, DOI 10.17487/RFC4620, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc4620 - [RFC4884]
-
R. Bonica, D. Gan, D. Tappan, and C. Pignataro, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc4884 - [RFC8029]
-
K. Kompella, G. Swallow, C. Pignataro, N. Kumar, S. Aldrin, and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8029 - [RFC8335]
-
R. Bonica, R. Thomas, J. Linkova, C. Lenart, and M. Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces", RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8335 - [RFC8799]
-
B. Carpenter, and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8799
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Tianran Zhou, Dhruv Dhody, Frank Brockners, Cheng Li, Gyan Mishra, Marcus Ihlar, Martin Duke, Chris Lonvick, Éric Vyncke, Alvaro Retana, Paul Wouters, Roman Danyliw, Lars Eggert, Warren Kumari, John Scudder, Robert Wilton, Erik Kline, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Murray Kucherawy, and Donald Eastlake 3rd for their careful review and helpful comments.
The authors appreciate the f2f discussion with Frank Brockners on this document.
The authors would like to acknowledge Tommy Pauly and Ian Swett for their good suggestion and guidance.
Authors' Addresses
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Phone: +86 25 88013062
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Lei Bo
China Telecom
Beijing
China
Phone: +86 10 50902903
Email: leibo@chinatelecom.cn
