Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mboned-multicast-telemetry
draft-ietf-mboned-multicast-telemetry
MBONED H. Song
Internet-Draft M. McBride
Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Technologies
Expires: 8 April 2024 G. Mirsky
Ericsson
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
H. Asaeda
NICT
T. Zhou
Huawei Technologies
6 October 2023
Multicast On-path Telemetry using IOAM
draft-ietf-mboned-multicast-telemetry-08
Abstract
This document specifies the requirements of on-path telemetry for
multicast traffic using In-situ OAM. While In-situ OAM is
advantageous for multicast traffic telemetry, some unique challenges
are present. This document provides the solutions based on the In-
situ OAM trace option and direct export option to support the
telemetry data correlation and the multicast tree reconstruction
without incurring data redundancy.
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.
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/.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
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 8 April 2024.
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements for Multicast Traffic Telemetry . . . . . . . . 4
3. Issues of Existing Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Modifications to Existing Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Per-hop postcard using IOAM DEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Per-section postcard for IOAM Trace . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Application Considerations for Multicast Protocols . . . . . 9
5.1. Mtrace verson 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Application in PIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Application of MVPN X-PMSI Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Application in BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
1. Introduction
Multicast has many use cases. For example, it can be used by
residential broadband customers across operator networks, private
MPLS customers, and internal customers within corporate intranet.
Multicast provides real time interactive online meetings or podcasts,
IPTV, and financial markets real-time data, which all have a reliance
on UDP's unreliable transport. End-to-end QOS, therefore, should be
a critical component of multicast deployment in order to provide a
good end user experience. In multicast real-time media streaming,
loss of a single packet containing a reference frame can result in
the inability of thousands of receivers to decode a whole sequence of
packets called Group-of-Picture, introducing black picture for
periods of a few seconds. Unexpected long delay in propagation of a
packet in such real-time media streaming may equally result in the
packet not being received and create the same results. Multicast
packet drops and delay can therefore severely affect the application
performance and user experience.
It is important to monitor the performance of the multicast traffic.
New on-path telemetry techniques such as In-situ OAM (IOAM)
[RFC9197], IOAM Direct Export (DEX) [RFC9326] IOAM Marking-based
Postcard (PBT-M) [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry], and Hybrid
Two-Step (HTS) [I-D.ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step] are useful and
complementary to the existing active OAM performance monitoring
methods (e.g., ICMP ping [RFC0792]), provide promising means to
directly monitor the network experience of multicast traffic.
However, multicast traffic has some unique characteristics which pose
some challenges on applying such techniques in an efficient way.
The IP multicast packet data for a particular (S, G) state is
identical from one branch to another on its way to multiple
receivers. When adding IOAM trace data to multicast packets, each
replicated packet would keep the telemetry data for its entire
forwarding path. Since the replicated packets all share common path
segments, redundant data will be collected for the same original
multicast packet. Such redundancy consumes extra network bandwidth
unnecessarily. For a large multicast tree, such redundancy is
considerable. Alternatively, it could be more efficient to collect
the telemetry data using solutions such as IOAM DEX to eliminate the
data redundancy. However, IOAM DEX lacks a branch identifier, making
telemetry data correlation and multicast-tree reconstruction
difficult.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
This draft provides two solutions to the IOAM data redundancy problem
based on the IOAM standards. The requirements for multicast traffic
telemetry are discussed along with the issues of the existing on-path
telemetry techniques. We propose modifications to make these
techniques adapt to multicast in order for the original multicast
tree to be correctly reconstructed while eliminating redundant data.
2. Requirements for Multicast Traffic Telemetry
Multicast traffic is forwarded through a multicast tree. With PIM
and P2MP, the forwarding tree is established and maintained by the
multicast routing protocol. With BIER, no state is created in the
network to establish a forwarding tree; instead, a bier header
provides the necessary information for each packet to know the egress
points. Multicast packets are only replicated at each tree branch
fork node for efficiency.
There are several requirements for multicast traffic telemetry, a few
of which are:
* Reconstruct and visualize the multicast tree through data plane
monitoring.
* Gather the multicast packet delay and jitter performance on each
path.
* Find the multicast packet drop location and reason.
* Gather the VPN state and tunnel information in case of P2MP
multicast.
In order to meet these requirements, we need the ability to directly
monitor the multicast traffic and derive data from the multicast
packets. The conventional OAM mechanisms, such as multicast ping
[RFC6450] and trace [RFC8487], are not sufficient to meet these
requirements.
3. Issues of Existing Techniques
On-path Telemetry techniques that directly retrieve data from
multicast traffic's live network experience are ideal for addressing
the aforementioned requirements. The representative techniques
include In-situ OAM (IOAM) Trace option [RFC9197], IOAM Direct Export
(DEX) option [RFC9326], and PBT-M
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]. However, unlike unicast,
multicast poses some unique challenges to applying these techniques.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
Multicast packets are replicated at each branch fork node in the
corresponding multicast tree. Therefore, there are multiple copies
of the original multicast packet in the network.
If the IOAM trace option is used for on-path data collection, the
partial trace data will also be replicated into the packet copy for
each branch. The end result is that, at the multicast tree leaves,
each copy of the multicast packet has a complete trace. Most of the
data (except data from the last leaf branch) appear in multiple
copies while only one copy is sufficient. Data redundancy introduces
unnecessary header overhead, wastes network bandwidth, and
complicates the data processing. The larger the multicast tree, or
the longer the multicast path, the more severe the redundancy problem
becomes.
The postcard-based solutions (e.g., IOAM DEX), can be used to
eliminate such data redundancy, because each node on the tree only
sends a postcard covering local data. However, they cannot track and
correlate the tree branches properly due to the lack of branching
information, so they can bring confusion about the multicast tree
topology. For example, in a multicast tree, Node A has two branches,
one to Node B and the other to node C; further, Node B leads to Node
D and Node C leads to Node E. When applying postcard-based methods,
one cannot tell whether or not Node D(E) is the next hop of Node B(C)
from the received postcards alone, unless one correlates the
exporting nodes with knowledge about the tree collected by other
means (e.g., mtrace). Such correlation is undesirable because it
introduces extra work and complexity.
The fundamental reason for this problem is that there is not an
identifier (either implicit or explicit) to correlate the data on
each branch.
4. Modifications to Existing Solutions
We provide two solutions to address the above issues. One is based
on IOAM DEX and requires an extension to the instruction header of
the IOAM DEX Option. The second solution combines the IOAM trace
option and postcards for redundancy removal.
4.1. Per-hop postcard using IOAM DEX
One way to mitigate the postcard-based telemetry's tree tracking
weakness is to augment it with a branch identifier field. Note that
this works for the IOAM DEX option but not for PBT-M because the IOAM
DEX option has an instruction header which can be used to hold the
branch identifier. To make the branch identifier globally unique,
the branch fork node ID plus an index is used. For example, Node A
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
has two branches: one to Node B and the other to Node C. Node A will
use [A, 0] as the branch identifier for the branch to B, and [A, 1]
for the branch to C. The identifier is carried with the multicast
packet until the next branch fork node. Each node MUST export the
branch identifier in the received IOAM DEX header in the postcards it
sends. The branch identifier, along with the other fields such as
flow ID and sequence number, is sufficient for the data collector to
reconstruct the topology of the multicast tree.
Figure 1 shows an example of this solution. "P" stands for the
postcard packet. The square brackets contains the branch identifier.
The curly brace contains the telemetry data about a specific node.
P:[A,0]{A} P:[A,0]{B} P:[B,1]{D} P:[B,0]{C} P:[B,0]{E}
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : +-:-+ +-:-+
: : : | | | |
: : +---:----->| C |------>| E |-...
+-:-+ +-:-+ | : | | | |
| | | |----+ : +---+ +---+
| A |------->| B | :
| | | |--+ +-:-+
+---+ +---+ | | |
+-->| D |--...
| |
+---+
Figure 1: Per-hop Postcard
Each branch fork node needs to generate a unique branch identifier
(i.e., branch ID) for each branch in its multicast tree instance and
include it in the IOAM DEX option header. The branch ID remains
unchanged until the next branch fork node. The branch ID contains
two parts: the branch fork node ID and an interface index.
Conforming to the node ID specification in IOAM [RFC9197], the node
ID is a 3-octet unsigned integer. The interface index is a two-octet
unsigned integer. As shown in Figure 2, the branch ID consumes 8
octets in total. The three unused octets MUST be set to 0.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| node_id | unused |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index | unused |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Multicast Branch ID format
Figure 3 shows that the branch ID is carried as an optional field
after the flow ID and sequence number optional fields in the IOAM DEX
option header. Two bits "N" and "I" (i.e., the third and fourth bits
in the Extension-Flags field) are reserved to indicate the presence
of the optional branch ID field. "N" stands for the Node ID and "I"
stands for the interface index. If "N" and "I" are both set to 1,
the optional multicast branch ID field is present; otherwise it is
absent.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Flags |F|S|N|I|E-Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow ID (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multicast Branch ID |
| (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Carry Branch ID in IOAM DEX option header
Once a node gets the branch ID information from the upstream, it MUST
carry this information in its telemetry data export postcards, so the
original multicast tree can be correctly reconstructed based on the
postcards.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
4.2. Per-section postcard for IOAM Trace
The second solution is a combination of the IOAM trace option and the
postcard-based telemetry. To avoid data redundancy, at each branch
fork node, the trace data accumulated up to this node is exported by
a postcard before the packet is replicated. In this solution, each
branch also needs to maintain some identifier to help correlate the
postcards for each tree section. The natural way to accomplish this
is to simply carry the branch fork node's data (including its ID) in
the trace of each branch. This is also necessary because each
replicated multicast packet can have different telemetry data
pertaining to this particular copy (e.g., node delay, egress
timestamp, and egress interface). As a consequence, the local data
exported by each branch fork node can only contain partial data
(e.g., ingress interface and ingress timestamp).
Figure 4 shows an example in a segment of a multicast tree. Node B
and D are two branch fork nodes and they will export a postcard
covering the trace data for the previous section. The end node of
each path will also need to export the data of the last section as a
postcard.
P:{A,B'} P:{B1,C,D'}
^ ^
: :
: :
: : {D1}
: : +--...
: +---+ +---+ |
: {B1} | |{B1,C}| |--+ {D2}
: +-->| C |----->| D |-----...
+---+ +---+ | | | | |--+
| | {A} | |--+ +---+ +---+ |
| A |---->| B | +--...
| | | |--+ +---+ {D3}
+---+ +---+ | | |{B2,E}
+-->| E |--...
{B2} | |
+---+
Figure 4: Per-section Postcard
There is no need to modify the IOAM trace option header format as
specified in [RFC9197]. We just need to configure the branch fork
nodes to export the postcards and refresh the IOAM header and data
(e.g., clear the node data list and reset the Remaining Length
field).
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
5. Application Considerations for Multicast Protocols
5.1. Mtrace verson 2
Mtrace version 2 (Mtrace2) [RFC8487] is a protocol that allows the
tracing of an IP multicast routing path. Mtrace2 provides additional
information such as the packet rates and losses, as well as other
diagnostic information. Unlike unicast traceroute, Mtrace2 traces
the path that the tree building messages follow from receiver to
source. It is usually initiated from an Mtrace2 client by sending an
Mtrace2 Query to a Last-Hop Router (LHR) or to a Rendezvous Point
(RP). The LHR/RP turns the Query packet into an Mtrace2 Request,
appends a Standard Response Block containing its interface addresses
and packet statistics to the Request packet, and forwards the packet
towards the source/RP. In a similar fashion, each router along the
path to the source/RP appends a Standard Response Block to the end of
the Request packet and forwards it to its upstream router. When the
First-Hop Router (FHR) receives the Request packet, it appends its
own Standard Response Block, turns the Request packet into a Reply,
and unicasts the Reply back to the Mtrace2 client.
New on-path telemetry techniques will enhance Mtrace2, and other
existing OAM solutions, with more granular and realtime network
status data through direct measurements. There are various multicast
protocols that are used to forward the multicast data. Each will
require their own unique on-path telemetry solution. Mtrace2 doesn't
integrate with IOAM directly, but network management systems may use
Mtrace2 to learn about routers of interest.
5.2. Application in PIM
PIM-SM [RFC7761] is the most widely used multicast routing protocol
deployed today. PIM-SSM, however, is the preferred method due to its
simplicity and removal of network source discovery complexity. With
PIM, control plane state is established in the network in order to
forward multicast UDP data packets. PIM utilizes network based
source discovery. PIM-SSM, however, utilizes application based
source discovery. IP Multicast packets fall within the range of
224.0.0.0 through 239.255.255.255. The telemetry solution will need
to work within this IPv4 address range and provide telemetry data for
this UDP traffic.
A proposed solution for encapsulating the telemetry instruction
header and metadata in IPv6 packets is described in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options].
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
5.3. Application of MVPN X-PMSI Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
IOAM, and the recommendations of this document, are equally
applicable to multicast MPLS forwarded packets. Multipoint Label
Distribution Protocol (mLDP), P2MP RSVP-TE, Ingress Replication (IR)
and PIM MDT SAFI with GRE Transport are all commonly used within a
Multicast VPN (MVPN) environment utilizing MVPN procedures such as
Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs [RFC6513] and BGP Encoding and
Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs [RFC6514]. MLDP LDP
Extension for P2MP and MP2MP LSPs [RFC6388] provides extensions to
LDP to establish point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and multipoint-to-
multipoint (MP2MP) label switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS networks.
P2MP RSVP-TE provides extensions to RSVP-TE RSVP-TE for P2MP LSPs
[RFC4875] to establish traffic-engineered P2MP LSPs in MPLS networks.
Also used is Ingress Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPNs [RFC7988]
which uses unicast replication from parent node to child node over a
MPLS Unicast Tunnel. PIM MDT SAFI Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
[RFC6037]utilizes PIM-SSM, PIM-SM or PIM-BIDIR control plane with GRE
transport data plane in the core for X-PMSI P-Tree using MVPN
procedures. SR Replication Segment for Multi-point Service Delivery
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment] utilizes replication
segments for P2MP multicast service delivery in Segment Routing SR-
MPLS networks. The telemetry solution will need to be able to follow
these P2MP and MP2MP paths. The telemetry instruction header and
data should be encapsulated into MPLS packets on P2MP and MP2MP
paths. A corresponding proposal is described in
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header].
5.4. Application in BIER
BIER [RFC8279] adds a new header to multicast packets and allows the
multicast packets to be forwarded according to the header only. By
eliminating the requirement of maintaining per multicast group state,
BIER is more scalable than the traditional multicast solutions.
OAM Requirements for BIER [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements] lists many
of the requirements for OAM at the BIER layer which will help in the
forming of on-path telemetry requirements as well.
Depending on how the BIER header is encapsulated into packets with
different transport protocols, the method to encapsulate the
telemetry instruction header and metadata also varies. It is also
possible to make the instruction header and metadata a part of the
BIER header itself, such as in a TLV.
BIER-TE [RFC9262] contains multicast tree information in the packet
header. It would therefore be possible to directly deduce the tree,
that a packet traversed, when correlating received IOAM information.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
6. Security Considerations
The schemes discussed in this document share the same security
considerations for the IOAM trace option [RFC9197] and the IOAM DEX
option [RFC9326]. In particular, since multicast has a built-in
nature for packet amplification, the possible amplification risk for
the DEX-based scheme is greater than the case of unicast. Hence,
stricter mechanisms for protections need to be applied. In addition
to selecting packets to enable DEX and limiting the exported traffic
rate, we can also allows only a subset of the nodes in a multicast
tree to process the option and export the data (e.g., only the
branching nodes in the multicast tree are configured to process the
option).
7. IANA Considerations
The document requests two new extension flag registrations in the
"IOAM DEX Extension-Flags" registry, as described in Section 4.1.
Bit 2 "Multicast Branching Node ID [RFC XXXX] [RFC Editor: please
replace with the RFC number of the current document]".
Bit 3 "Multicast Branching Interface Index [RFC XXXX] [RFC Editor:
please replace with the RFC number of the current document]".
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Frank Brockners, Nils Warnke, Jake
Holland, Dino Farinacci, Henrik Nydell, and Toerless Eckert for their
comments and suggestions.
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC7988] Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K., and Z. Zhang, "Ingress
Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN", RFC 7988,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7988, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7988>.
[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>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[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>.
[RFC9262] Eckert, T., Ed., Menth, M., and G. Cauchie, "Tree
Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)",
RFC 9262, DOI 10.17487/RFC9262, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9262>.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
[RFC9326] Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., 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>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]
Mirsky, G., Nainar, N. K., Chen, M., and S. Pallagatti,
"Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
Layer", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-
oam-requirements-13, 10 August 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bier-
oam-requirements-13>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step]
Mirsky, G., Lingqiang, W., Zhui, G., Song, H., and P.
Thubert, "Hybrid Two-Step Performance Measurement Method",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-hybrid-
two-step-00, 4 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
hybrid-two-step-00>.
[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-12, 7 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
ioam-ipv6-options-12>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment]
Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
J. Zhang, "SR Replication segment for Multi-point Service
Delivery", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
spring-sr-replication-segment-19, 28 August 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
sr-replication-segment-19>.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Mirsky, G., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Graf, T., Mishra,
G. S., Shin, J., and K. Lee, "On-Path Telemetry using
Packet Marking to Trigger Dedicated OAM Packets", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-
telemetry-16, 2 June 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-ippm-
postcard-based-telemetry-16>.
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Andersson, L., Zhang, Z. J., and R.
Gandhi, "MPLS Network Actions using Post-Stack Extension
Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-
mpls-extension-header-12, 14 April 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-mpls-
extension-header-12>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC6037] Rosen, E., Ed., Cai, Y., Ed., and IJ. Wijnands, "Cisco
Systems' Solution for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs",
RFC 6037, DOI 10.17487/RFC6037, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6037>.
[RFC6450] Venaas, S., "Multicast Ping Protocol", RFC 6450,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6450, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6450>.
[RFC8487] Asaeda, H., Meyer, K., and W. Lee, Ed., "Mtrace Version 2:
Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", RFC 8487,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8487, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8487>.
Authors' Addresses
Haoyu Song
Futurewei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara,
United States of America
Email: hsong@futurewei.com
Mike McBride
Futurewei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara,
United States of America
Email: mmcbride@futurewei.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multicast Telemetry October 2023
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Hitoshi Asaeda
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
Japan
Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp
Tianran Zhou
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Song, et al. Expires 8 April 2024 [Page 15]
