Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags
IPPM T. Mizrahi
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners
Expires: 19 February 2023 Cisco
S. Bhandari
Thoughtspot
B. Gafni
Nvidia
M. Spiegel
Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
18 August 2022
In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10
Abstract
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) collects
operational and telemetry information in packets while they traverse
a path between two points in the network. This document defines two
new flags in the IOAM Trace Option headers, specifically the Loopback
and Active flags.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 February 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. New IOAM Trace Option Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Loopback in IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Loopback: Encapsulating Node Functionality . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Loopback Packet Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Receiving and Processing Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Loopback on the Return Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Terminating a Looped Back Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Active Measurement with IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
IOAM [RFC9197] is used for monitoring traffic in the network by
incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data packets.
IOAM data may be represented in one of four possible IOAM options:
Pre-allocated Trace Option, Incremental Trace Option, Proof of
Transit (POT) Option, and Edge-to-Edge Option. This document defines
two new flags in the Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace options: the
Loopback and Active flags.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
The Loopback flag is used to request that each transit device along
the path loops back a truncated copy of the data packet to the
sender. The Active flag indicates that a packet is used for active
measurement. The term active measurement in the context of this
document is as defined in [RFC7799].
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Terminology
Abbreviations used in this document:
IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance [RFC6291]
3. New IOAM Trace Option Flags
This document defines two new flags in the Pre-allocated and
Incremental Trace options:
Bit 1 "Loopback" (L-bit). When set, the Loopback flag triggers
sending a copy of a packet back towards the source, as further
described in Section 4.
Bit 2 "Active" (A-bit). When set, the Active flag indicates that a
packet is an active measurement packet rather than a data packet,
where "active" is used in the sense defined in [RFC7799]. The
packet may be an IOAM probe packet, or a replicated data packet
(the second and third use cases of Section 5).
4. Loopback in IOAM
The Loopback flag is used to request that each transit device along
the path loops back a truncated copy of the data packet to the
sender. Loopback allows an IOAM encapsulating node to trace the path
to a given destination, and to receive per-hop data about both the
forward and the return path. Loopback is intended to provide an
accelerated alternative to Traceroute, that allows the encapsulating
node to receive responses from multiple transit nodes along the path
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
in less then one round-trip-time, and by sending a single packet.
As illustrated in Figure 1, an IOAM encapsulating node can push an
IOAM encapsulation that includes the Loopback flag onto some or all
of the packets it forwards, using one of the IOAM encapsulation
types, e.g., [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh], or
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]. The IOAM transit node and the
decapsulating node both creates copies of the packet and loop them
back to the encapsulating node. The decapsulating node also
terminates the IOAM encapsulation, and then forwards the packet
towards the destination. The two IOAM looped back copies are
terminated by the encapsulating node.
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | | IOAM |.....| IOAM |.....| IOAM | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| L2/L3 |<===>| L2/L3 |<===>| L2/L3 |<===>| L2/L3 |<===>| L2/L3 |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Source Encapsulating Transit Decapsulating Destination
Node Node Node
<------------ IOAM domain ----------->
IOAM encap. with Loopback flag
Data packet ------->============================>----------->
| |
IOAM looped back | |
<=============+ |
IOAM looped back|
<===========================+
Figure 1: Loopback in IOAM.
Loopback can be used only if a return path from transit nodes and
destination nodes towards the source (encapsulating node) exists.
Specifically, loopback is only applicable in encapsulations in which
the identity of the encapsulating node is available in the
encapsulation header. If an encapsulating node receives a looped
back packet that was not originated from the current encapsulating
node, the packet is dropped.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
4.1. Loopback: Encapsulating Node Functionality
The encapsulating node either generates synthetic packets with an
IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set, or sets the loopack
flag in a subset of the in-transit data packets. Loopback is used
either proactively or on-demand, i.e., when a failure is detected.
The encapsulating node also needs to ensure that sufficient space is
available in the IOAM header for loopback operation, which includes
transit nodes adding trace data on the original path and then again
on the return path.
An IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set MUST have the
value '1' in the most significant bit of IOAM-Trace-Type, and '0' in
the rest of the bits of IOAM-Trace-Type. Thus, every transit node
that processes this trace option only adds a single data field, which
is the Hop_Lim and node_id data field. A transit node that receives
a packet with an IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set and
the IOAM-Trace-Type is not equal to '1' in the most significant bit
and '0' in the rest of the bits, MUST NOT loop back a copy of the
packet. The reason for allowing only a single data field per hop is
to minimize the impact of amplification attacks.
IOAM encapsulating nodes MUST NOT push an IOAM encapsulation with the
Loopback flag onto data packets that already include an IOAM
encapsulation. This requirement is intended to prevent IOAM Loopback
nesting, where looped back packets may be subject to loopback in a
nested IOAM domain.
4.1.1. Loopback Packet Selection
If an IOAM encapsulating node incorporates the Loopback flag into all
the traffic it forwards it may lead to an excessive amount of looped
back packets, which may overload the network and the encapsulating
node. Therefore, an IOAM encapsulating node that supports the
Loopback flag MUST support the ability to incorporate the Loopback
flag selectively into a subset of the packets that are forwarded by
it.
Various methods of packet selection and sampling have been previously
defined, such as [RFC7014] and [RFC5475]. Similar techniques can be
applied by an IOAM encapsulating node to apply Loopback to a subset
of the forwarded traffic.
The subset of traffic that is forwarded or transmitted with a
Loopback flag SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface capacity on any
of the IOAM encapsulating node's interfaces. This requirement
applies to the total traffic that incorporates a Loopback flag,
including traffic that is forwarded by the IOAM encapsulating node
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
and probe packets that are generated by the IOAM encapsulating node.
In this context N is a parameter that can be configurable by network
operators. If there is an upper bound, M, on the number of IOAM
transit nodes in any path in the network, then configuring N such
that N >> M (i.e., N is much greater than M) is RECOMMENDED. The
rationale is that a packet that includes the Loopback flag triggers a
looped back packet from each IOAM transit node along the path for a
total of M looped back packets. Thus, if N >> M then the number of
looped back packets is significantly lower than the number of data
packets forwarded by the IOAM encapsulating node. It is RECOMMENDED
that the default value of N satisfies N>100, to be used in the
absence of explicit operator configuration or if there is no prior
knowledge about the network topology or size.
An IOAM domain in which the Loopback flag is used MUST be configured
such that there is expected to be a return path from each of the IOAM
transit and IOAM decapsulating nodes; if this expectation does not
apply, or if the encapsulating node's identity is not available in
the encapsulation header, then configuration MUST NOT enable the
Loopback flag to be set.
4.2. Receiving and Processing Loopback
A Loopback flag that is set indicates to the transit nodes processing
this option that they are to create a copy of the received packet and
send the copy back to the source of the packet. In this context the
source is the IOAM encapsulating node, and it is assumed that the
source address is available in the encapsulation header. Thus, the
source address of the original packet is used as the destination
address in the copied packet. If IOAM is used over an encapsulation
that does not include the address of the encapsulating node, then the
transit/decapsulating node does not loop back a copy of the original
packet. The address of the node performing the copy operation is
used as the source address; the specific method of source address
assignment is encapsulation specific, e.g., if an IPv6 encapsulation
is used, then the source address can be assigned as specified in
[RFC6724]. The copy is also truncated, i.e., any payload that
resides after the IOAM option(s) is removed before transmitting the
looped back packet back towards the encapsulating node. Creating the
copy that is looped back, and specifically the truncation, may
require some encapsulation-specific updates in the encapsulation
header. The original packet continues towards its destination. The
L-bit MUST be cleared in the copy of the packet that a node sends
back towards the source.
An IOAM node that supports the reception and processing of the
Loopback flag MUST support the ability to limit the rate of the
looped back packets. The rate of looped back packets SHOULD be
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
limited so that the number of looped back packets is significantly
lower than the number of packets that are forwarded by the device.
The looped back data rate SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface
capacity on any of the IOAM node's interfaces. Using N>100 is
RECOMMENDED. Depending on the IOAM node's architecture
considerations, the loopback response rate may be limited to a lower
number in order to avoid overloading the IOAM node.
4.3. Loopback on the Return Path
On its way back towards the source, the copied packet is processed
like any other packet with IOAM information, including adding
requested data at each transit node (assuming there is sufficient
space).
4.4. Terminating a Looped Back Packet
Once the return packet reaches the IOAM domain boundary, IOAM
decapsulation occurs as with any other packet containing IOAM
information. Note that the looped back packet does not have the
L-bit set. The IOAM encapsulating node that initiated the original
loopback packet recognizes a received packet as an IOAM looped-back
packet by checking the Node ID in the Hop_Lim/node_id field that
corresponds to the first hop. If the Node ID and IOAM-Namespace
match the current IOAM node, it indicates that this is a looped back
packet that was initiated by the current IOAM node, and processed
accordingly. If there is no match in the Node ID, the packet is
processed like a conventional IOAM-encapsulated packet.
Note that an IOAM encapsulating node may either be an endpoint (such
as an IPv6 host), or a switch/router that pushes a tunnel
encapsulation onto data packets. In both cases, the functionality
that was described above avoids IOAM data leaks from the IOAM domain.
Specifically, if an IOAM looped-back packet reaches an IOAM boundary
node that is not the IOAM node that initiated the loopback, the node
does not process the packet as a loopback; the IOAM encapsulation is
removed, preventing IOAM information from leaking out from the IOAM
domain, and since the packet does not have any payload it is
terminated.
5. Active Measurement with IOAM
Active measurement methods [RFC7799] make use of synthetically
generated packets in order to facilitate measurement. This section
presents use cases of active measurement using the IOAM Active flag.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
The Active flag indicates that a packet is used for active
measurement. An IOAM decapsulating node that receives a packet with
the Active flag set in one of its Trace options must terminate the
packet. The Active flag is intended to simplify the implementation
of decapsulating nodes by indicating that the packet should not be
forwarded further. It is not intended as a replacement for existing
active OAM protocols, which may run in higher layers and make use of
the Active flag.
An example of an IOAM deployment scenario is illustrated in Figure 2.
The figure depicts two endpoints, a source and a destination. The
data traffic from the source to the destination is forwarded through
a set of network devices, including an IOAM encapsulating node, which
incorporates one or more IOAM options, a decapsulating node, which
removes the IOAM options, optionally one or more transit nodes. The
IOAM options are encapsulated in one of the IOAM encapsulation types,
e.g., [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh], or [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options].
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | | IOAM |.....| IOAM |.....| IOAM | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| L2/L3 |<===>| L2/L3 |<===>| L2/L3 |<===>| L2/L3 |<===>| L2/L3 |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Source Encapsulating Transit Decapsulating Destination
Node Node Node
<------------ IOAM domain ----------->
Figure 2: Network using IOAM.
This document focuses on three possible use cases of active
measurement using IOAM. These use cases are described using the
example of Figure 2.
* Endpoint active measurement: synthetic probe packets are sent
between the source and destination, traversing the IOAM domain.
Since the probe packets are sent between the endpoints, these
packets are treated as data packets by the IOAM domain, and do not
require special treatment at the IOAM layer. Specifically, the
Active flag is not used in this case, and the IOAM layer does not
need to be aware that an active measurement mechanism is used at a
higher layer.
* IOAM active measurement using probe packets within the IOAM
domain: probe packets are generated and transmitted by the IOAM
encapsulating node, and are expected to be terminated by the
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
decapsulating node. IOAM data related to probe packets may be
exported by one or more nodes along its path, by an exporting
protocol that is outside the scope of this document (e.g.,
[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]). Probe packets include a Trace
Option which has its Active flag set, indicating that the
decapsulating node must terminate them. The specification of
these probe packets and the processing of these packets by the
encapsulating and decapsulating nodes is outside the scope of this
document.
* IOAM active measurement using replicated data packets: probe
packets are created by the encapsulating node by selecting some or
all of the en route data packets and replicating them. A selected
data packet, and its (possibly truncated) copy is forwarded with
one or more IOAM options, while the original packet is forwarded
normally, without IOAM options. To the extent possible, the
original data packet and its replica are forwarded through the
same path. The replica includes a Trace Option that has its
Active flag set, indicating that the decapsulating node should
terminate it. The current document defines the role of the Active
flag in allowing the decapsulating node to terminate the packet,
but the replication functionality and the functionality of the
decapsulating node in this context is outside the scope of this
document.
If the volume of traffic that incorporates the Active flag is large,
it may overload the network and the IOAM node(s) that process the
active measurement packet. Thus, the rate of the traffic that
includes the Active flag SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface
capacity on any of the IOAM node's interfaces. Using N>100 is
RECOMMENDED. Depending on the IOAM node's architecture
considerations, the rate of Active-enabled IOAM packets may be
limited to a lower number in order to avoid overloading the IOAM
node.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate the following bits in the "IOAM Trace
Flags Registry" as follows:
Bit 1 "Loopback" (L-bit)
Bit 2 "Active" (A-bit)
The "Reference" specified in the registry for both bits should be the
current document.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
Note that bit 0 is the most significant bit in the Flags Registry.
This bit was allocated by [RFC9197] as the 'Overflow' bit.
7. Performance Considerations
Each of the flags that are defined in this document may have
performance implications. When using the loopback mechanism a copy
of the data packet is sent back to the sender, thus generating more
traffic than originally sent by the endpoints. Using active
measurement with the Active flag requires the use of synthetic
(overhead) traffic.
Each of the mechanisms that use the flags above has a cost in terms
of the network bandwidth, and may potentially load the node that
analyzes the data. Therefore, it MUST be possible to use each of the
mechanisms on a subset of the data traffic; an encapsulating node
needs to be able to set the Loopback and Active flag selectively, in
a way that considers the effect on the network performance, as
further discussed in Section 4.1.1 and Section 5.
Transit and decapsulating nodes that support Loopback need to be able
to limit the looped back packets (Section 4.2) so as to ensure that
the mechanisms are used at a rate that does not significantly affect
the network bandwidth, and does not overload the source node in the
case of loopback.
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
[RFC9197]. Specifically, an attacker may try to use the
functionality that is defined in this document to attack the network.
IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,
thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their effect. This
is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of
IOAM, as further discussed in [RFC9197]. However, even given this
limited scope, security threats should still be considered and
mitigated. Specifically, an attacker may attempt to overload network
devices by injecting synthetic packets that include an IOAM Trace
Option with one or more of the flags defined in this document.
Similarly, an on-path attacker may maliciously set one or more of the
flags of transit packets.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
* Loopback flag: an attacker that sets this flag, either in
synthetic packets or transit packet, can potentially cause an
amplification, since each device along the path creates a copy of
the data packet and sends it back to the source. The attacker can
potentially leverage the Loopback flag for a Distributed Denial of
Service (DDoS) attack, as multiple devices send looped-back copies
of a packet to a single victim.
* Active flag: the impact of synthetic packets with the Active flag
is no worse than synthetic data packets in which the Active flag
is not set. By setting the Active flag in en route packets an
attacker can prevent these packets from reaching their
destination, since the packet is terminated by the decapsulating
device; however, note that an on-path attacker may achieve the
same goal by changing the destination address of a packet.
Another potential threat is amplification; if an attacker causes
transit switches to replicate more packets than they are intended
to replicate, either by setting the Active flag or by sending
synthetic packets, then traffic is amplified, causing bandwidth
degredation. As mentioned in Section 5, the specification of the
replication mechanism is not within the scope of this document. A
specification that defines the replication functionality should
also address the security aspects of this mechanism.
Some of the security threats that were discussed in this document may
be worse in a wide area network in which there are nested IOAM
domains. For example, if there are two nested IOAM domains that use
loopback, then a looped-back copy in the outer IOAM domain may be
forwarded through another (inner) IOAM domain and may be subject to
loopback in that (inner) IOAM domain, causing the amplification to be
worse than in the conventional case.
In order to mitigate the performance-related attacks described above,
as described in Section 7 it should be possible for IOAM-enabled
devices to selectively apply the mechanisms that use the flags
defined in this document to a subset of the traffic, and to limit the
performance of synthetically generated packets to a configurable
rate. Specifically, IOAM nodes should be able to:
* Limit the rate of IOAM packets with the Loopback flag (IOAM
encapsulating nodes), as discussed in Section 4.1.1.
* Limit the rate of looped back packets (IOAM transit and
decapsulating nodes), as discussed in Section 4.2.
* Limit the rate of IOAM packets with the Active flag (IOAM
encapsulating nodes), as discussed in Section 5.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
As defined in Section 4, transit nodes that process a packet with the
Loopback flag only add a single data field, and truncate any payload
that follows the IOAM option(s), thus significanly limiting the
possible impact of an amplification attack.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors thank Martin Duke, Tommy Pauly, Donald Eastlake, Paul
Kyzivat, Bernard Aboba, Greg Mirsky, and other members of the IPPM
working group for many helpful comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "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>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
Bhandari, S. and F. Brockners, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
ipv6-options-08, 16 June 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
ipv6-options-08.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh]
Brockners, F. and S. Bhandari, "Network Service Header
(NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-10, 18
May 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sfc-
ioam-nsh-10.txt>.
[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]
Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.
Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-
rawexport-06, 21 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-
rawexport-06.txt>.
[RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC7014] D'Antonio, S., Zseby, T., Henke, C., and L. Peluso, "Flow
Selection Techniques", RFC 7014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7014,
September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7014>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
Contributors
The Editors would like to recognize the contributions of the
following individuals to this document.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
Ramesh Sivakolundu
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
U.S.A.
Email: sramesh@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Aviv Kfir
Nvidia
Email: avivk@nvidia.com
Jennifer Lemon
Broadcom
270 Innovation Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com
Authors' Addresses
Tal Mizrahi
Huawei
Israel
Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
Frank Brockners
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
40549 DUESSELDORF
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IOAM Flags August 2022
Shwetha Bhandari
Thoughtspot
3rd Floor, Indiqube Orion, 24th Main Rd, Garden Layout, HSR Layout
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 102
India
Email: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com
Barak Gafni
Nvidia
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
Sunnyvale, CA
Email: gbarak@nvidia.com
Mickey Spiegel
Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
4750 Patrick Henry Drive
Santa Clara, CA, 95054
United States of America
Email: mickey.spiegel@intel.com
Mizrahi, et al. Expires 19 February 2023 [Page 15]
