<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
     There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
     An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6241 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6241.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7950 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7950.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7149 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7149.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7426 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7426.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8299 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8299.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8309 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8309.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8340 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8340.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8453 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8453.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8345 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8345.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
     (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-he-ippm-ioam-extensions-incorporating-am-06"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title>IOAM Trace Option Extensions for Incorporating the Alternate-Marking Method</title>

    <author fullname="Xiaoming He" initials="X." surname="He">
      <organization>China Telecom</organization>

      <address>
        <email>hexm4@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Xiao Min" initials="X." surname="Min">
      <organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>

      <address>
        <email>xiao.min2@zte.com.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author> 

    <author fullname="Frank Brockners" initials="F." surname="Brockners">
      <organization>Cisco</organization>

      <address>
        <email>fbrockne@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Giuseppe Fioccola" initials="G." surname="Fioccola">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>

      <address>
        <email>giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Chongfeng Xie" initials="C." surname="Xie">
      <organization>China Telecom</organization>

      <address>
        <email>xiechf@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2026"/>

    <area>IPPM</area>

    <workgroup>IPPM Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>Performance Measurement</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>In situ Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
      for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information, which leverages
      IOAM Trace Option to incorporate IOAM data fields into
   in-flight data packets. The Alternate-Marking method is used
      to measure performance metrics on live
      traffic, such as packet loss, delay, and jitter. This document extends IOAM Trace Option
      for incorporating the Alternate-Marking method to augment
   IOAM in performance measurement. </t>

    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="Introduction" title="Introduction">
      <t>IOAM [RFC9197], which defines two possible IOAM Trace Option-Types:
      Pre-allocated Trace and Incremental Trace, is used for monitoring traffic in the network and for
      incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data packets. IOAM Trace Option is known as the passport mode, in which each node on the path
      can add telemetry data to the user packets (i.e., stamps the passport).
      IOAM Direct Export (DEX) [RFC9326] is used as a trigger for IOAM nodes
      to directly export IOAM data to a receiving entity such as a collector,
      analyzer, or controller. IOAM DEX is also referred as the postcard mode,
      in which each node directly exports the telemetry data using an
      independent packet (i.e., sends a postcard) while the user packets are
      unmodified.</t>

      <t>The limitation of the passport mode lies in that if a packet is lost
      on the path, the collected IOAM data are also lost. So the passport mode
      such as IOAM Trace Option-Type is unable to monitor packet drop and
      its location.</t>

      <t>IOAM DEX Option-Type can complement IOAM Trace Option-Type in that
      even if a packet is lost on the path, the collected partial data are
      still available. By correlating the data from different nodes, the
      number of the lost packets can be counted accurately and packet
      drop location can be pinpointed.</t>

      <t>The Alternate-Marking [RFC9341] technique has been proven to work
      well to perform packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live
      traffic. RFC9343 describes how the Alternate-Marking method can be used
      to measure performance metrics in IPv6. It defines an Extension Header
      Option to encode Alternate-Marking information in both the Hop-by-Hop
      Options Header and Destination Options Header.</t>

      <t>[draft-he-ippm-ioam-dex-extensions-incorporating-am] presents the problems statement 
      currently faced by IOAM DEX Option in measuring performance metrics such as packet loss. 
      In order to augment performance measurement of IOAM, it also defines the IOAM DEX Option extension to 
      incorporate the Alternate-Marking method into IOAM. 
      Therefore, the Extended IOAM DEX Option can be used for both IOAM trace monitoring and 
      performance measurement, such as packet loss, latency, and jitter, simplifing the complexity of forwarding chips.</t>

      <t>For the same purpose, this document defines the IOAM Trace Option extensions for incorporating the Alternate-Marking method to augment IOAM in performance measurement.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Conventions">
    
     <section title="Requirements Language">
      <t>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
      <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
      they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
     </section>

     <section title="Terminology">
      <t>Abbreviations used in this document:</t>
      <t>DEX:     Direct Exporting</t>
      <t>IOAM:    In situ Operation, Administration, and Maintenance</t>
      <t>MPN:     Measurement Period Number</t>
      <t>OAM:     Operation, Administration, and Maintenance</t>
      <t>SN:      Sequence Number</t>
     </section>
    </section>

    <section title="The Extended IOAM Trace Format">
      <t>The format of the Extended DEX Option-Type is depicted in Figure 1.
      All fields are same as IOAM Trace Option-Type header format defined in RFC9197 except the 8-bit Reserved field.  The Extended Trace Option-Type format uses the most
      significant 5 bits of the Reserved field.<figure
          title="The Extended IOAM Trace Option Header Format">
          <artwork>
 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           | NodeLen | Flags | RemainingLen|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |D|L|F|S|M|Resvd|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         Flow ID (Optional)                    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                     Sequence Number  (Optional)               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|             Measurement Period Number  (Optional)             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>Where the fields are defined as follows:</t>

      <t>Namespace-ID: 16-bit identifier of the IOAM namespace, as defined in
      [RFC9197].</t>

      <t>NodeLen: 5-bit unsigned integer, as defined in [RFC9197].</t>

      <t>Flags: 4-bit field, as defined in [RFC9197].</t>

      <t>RemainingLen: 7-bit unsigned integer, as defined in [RFC9197].</t>

      <t>IOAM-Trace-Type: 24-bit identifier that specifies which data types are used in the node data list, as defined in [RFC9197].</t>

      <t>L: 1-bit Loss flag, defined in this document for Packet Loss Measurement as described in Section 4.1.</t>

      <t>D: 1-bit Delay flag, defined in this document for Packet Delay Measurement as described in Section 4.2.</t>

	 <t>F: 1-bit Flow ID flag, defined in this document. This flag that is set to 1 indicates the existence of a corresponding optional 4-octet field.</t>

	 <t>S: 1-bit Sequence Number (SN) flag, defined in this document. This flag that is set to 1 indicates the existence of a corresponding optional 4-octet field.</t>

	 <t>M: 1-bit Measurement Period Number (MPN) flag, defined in this document. This flag that is set to 1 indicates the existence of a corresponding optional 4-octet field.</t>

      <t>Reserved: 3-bit field, reserved for future use. These bits MUST be
      set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.</t>

      <t>Optional fields: The optional fields, if present, reside after the
      Reserved field. The order of the optional fields is according to the
      order of the respective bits, which are enabled in the F, S and M Flag field. Each optional field is 4
      octets long.</t>

      <t>Flow ID: An optional 32-bit field representing the flow identifier.
      If the actual Flow ID is shorter than 32 bits, it is zero padded in its
      most significant bits. The field is set at the encapsulating node and exported to the receiving entity by the forwarding nodes. The
      Flow ID can be used to correlate the exported data of the same flow from
      multiple nodes and from multiple packets. Flow ID values are expected to
      be allocated in a way that avoids collisions. For example, random
      assignment of Flow ID values can be subject to collisions, while
      centralized allocation can avoid this problem. The collision probability (CP) for random allocation of Flow ID as well as the Flow ID allocation solution in the
   distributed way is detailed in Setion 5.</t>

      <t>Sequence Number: An optional 32-bit sequence number, starting from 0
      and incremented by 1 for each packet from the same flow at the
      encapsulating node. The Sequence Number,
      when combined with the Flow ID, provides a convenient approach to
      correlate the exported data from the same user packet.</t>

      <t>Measurement Period Number(MPN): An optional 32-bit field representing the measurement period number of the monitored flow, starting from 0 and incremented by 1 for the specified flow with the same Flow ID. The field is set at the encapsulating node and exported to the receiving entity by the forwarding nodes. The MPN, when combined with the Flow ID, provides a convenient approach to correlate the exported data of the same flow during the same measurement period from multiple nodes.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="The IOAM Operation">

      <t>The Extended Trace Option-Type SHOULD support the three IOAM operation modes: only IOAM trace monitoring; only performance measurement; hybrid.

      <list style="symbols">
      <t>Only IOAM trace monitoring: As Trace Option-Type does, 
      an IOAM encapsulating node that supports the Extended Trace Option-Type MUST support the ability to 
      incorporate the Extended Trace Option-Type into all packets 
      or a selective subset of the packets that are forwarded by the IOAM encapsulating node. 
      At the same time, it MUST set corresponding bit flag to 1 in IOAM Trace-Type field of the Extended Trace Option-Type 
      so that each node along the path needs to add the specified IOAM data to the user packets. 
      Also, it MUST set the L, D, F, S, M flag of the extended Trace Option-Type to zero on transmit and ignored by the monitoring nodes.</t>

      <t>Only performance measurement: To ensure the fidelity of performance measurement, an IOAM encapsulating node MUST incorporate the Extended Trace Option-Type into all packets of the measured user traffic it forwards. Like the Alternate-Marking Method [RFC9343], for packet loss measurement, it MUST switch the value of the L bit between 0 and 1 after a fixed number of packets or according to a fixed timer; for packet delay measurement, Single-Marking or Double-Marking methodology can be adopted by switching the value of the L bit or D bit between 0 and 1. But it MUST set all 24 bits flag to 0 in IOAM Trace-Type field of the Extended Trace Option-Type so that each node along the path does not need to add the IOAM data to the user packets.</t>

	 <t>Hybrid: To perform both IOAM trace monitoring and performance measurement concurrently, an IOAM encapsulating node MUST incorporate the Extended 
      Trace Option-Type into all the traffic of interest it forwards. For performance
      measurement, an IOAM encapsulating node MUST mark each packet it
      forwards in L flag and D flag of the extended Trace Option-Type; for IOAM
      trace monitoring, all packets or only a subset of the packets may be selected by an IOAM
      encapsulating node. For every selected packet, an IOAM encapsulating
      node MUST set corresponding bit flag to 1 in IOAM Trace-Type field of
      the Extended Trace Option-Type so that each node along the path needs to add the specified IOAM data to the user packets; for all the other packets not selected, an
      IOAM encapsulating node MUST set all 24 bits flag to 0 in IOAM
      Trace-Type field of the extended Trace Option-Type, such that each node
      along the path does not need to add the IOAM data to the
      user packets.</t>
      </list>
 	 </t> 	

      <section title="Packet Loss Measurement">
        <t>The measurement of the packet loss is detailed in [RFC9341]and
        [RFC9343]. The packets of the flow identified by Flow ID are grouped into batches, and all
        the packets within a batch are marked by setting the L bit (Loss flag)
        to a same value. The source node (IOAM encapsulating node) can switch
        the value of the L bit between 0 and 1 after a fixed number of packets
        or according to a fixed timer, and this depends on the implementation.
        The source node is the only one that marks the packets to create the
        batches, while the intermediate nodes only read the marking values and
        identify the packet batches. By counting the number of packets in each
        batch and comparing the values measured by different network nodes
        along the path, it is possible to measure the packet loss that
        occurred in any single batch between any two nodes. Each batch
        represents a measurable entity recognizable by all network nodes along
        the path, which export the counter value of this batch along with the Flow ID and the MPN (if present) to the receiving entity (e.g., the collector).</t>

	  <t>By employing the optional MPN field, it provides a simpler and accurate approach for the receiving entity to correlate the packet counter values belonging to the same measurement block (or measurement period) from different nodes, especially in the case where milliseconds-level measurement block for real-time network performance monitoring is required, e.g., Precision Availability Metrics (PAM) described in RFC9544.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Packet Delay Measurement">
        <t>Delay metrics may be calculated using the following two
        possibilities:</t>

        <t>Single-Marking Methodology: This approach uses only the L bit to
        calculate both packet loss and delay. In this case, the D flag MUST be
        set to zero on transmit and ignored by the monitoring nodes. The
        alternation of the values of the L bit can be used as a time reference
        to calculate the delay. Whenever the L bit changes and a new batch
        starts, a network node can store the timestamp of the first packet of
        the new batch; that timestamp can be compared with the timestamp of
        the first packet of the same batch on a second node to compute packet
        delay. However, this measurement is accurate only when the first packet of the new batch has not experienced packet loss or packet reordering.</t>

        <t>Double-Marking Methodology: This approach is to use the first
        marking with the L bit to create the alternate batch and, within the
        batches identified by the L bit, a second marking with the D bit set to 1 is used to select
        the packets for measuring delay. The D bit creates a new set of marked
        packets that are fully identified over the network so that a forwarding
        node can store and export the timestamps of these packets; these timestamps can
        be compared with the timestamps of the same packets on a second node
        to compute packet delay values for each packet. Compared to selecting a single double-marked packet 
        for each batch, which may lead to an invalid delay result if this double-marked packet is lost, 
        selecting multiple double-marked packets for each measurement batch provides a robust and 
        accurate method for packet delay measurement. Furthermore, the average delay for multiple double-marked packets can also be computed for every measurement period.</t>

        <t>Sequence Number can be used to identify multiple timestamps in different packets that pertain to the same measurement block in case of packet reordering. Also, It can be used to identify which double-marked packet is lost.</t>

        <t>In summary, the approach with Double-Marking is better than the
        approach with Single-Marking. In the implementation, the timestamps along with Flow ID, MPN and Sequence Number (if present)
        can be sent out to the receiving entity that is responsible for the
        calculation.</t>
       </section>
      </section>

	 <section title="Flow Identification">
        <t>The Flow Identification (Flow ID) identifies the flow to be measured and is required for some general reasons, which is described in Section 5.3 of [RFC9343]. [RFC9343] uses 20-bit FlowMonID to determine a monitored flow within the measurement domain. Compared to the FlowMonID, the Flow ID in this document is a 32-bit field, which amplifies the FlowMonID space by 4096 times. Accordingly, a chance of collision is greatly reduced in a distributed way.</t>

	   <t>When the 32-bit Flow ID is used for every source node, if there are N edge nodes (source nodes) in a large-scale operator network, and each source node can generate a unique Flow ID for every measured flow independently and randomly in a distributed way. Assuming that each node randomly generates M different Flow IDs from the available K flow identification space, then the total possible sample space (PSS) is</t>
	   <t>the Nth power of C (K, M)							(1)</t> 
	   <t>and the total possible sample space without overlapping (PSSno)is</t> 
	   <t>C1 (K, M)*C2 (K-M, M )*....*CN (k-(N-1)M, M)			(2)</t>

 	   <t>Theoritically, the collision probability (CP) is calculated as:</t>
 	   <t>CP=1-PSSno/PSS									(3)</t>
 	   <t>Take K=32nd power of 2 as an example, which corresponds to 32-bit Flow ID space. When the number N and M are given different values, we can obtain the corresponding CP values shown in the following table.</t>
 	   <t> <artwork>
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                | N=100  | N=100  | N=200  | N=200  | N=200  | N=200  |
| 32-bit Flow ID +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                | M=100  | M=200  | M=200  | M=300  | M=400  | M=500  |
+----------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+
|      CP        | 0.0115 | 0.0453 | 0.1692 | 0.3410 | 0.5235 | 0.6860 |
+----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+</artwork></t>

	   <t>It is not difficult to observe that as the number of concurrent monitored flows increases,the collision probability is rapidly increasing. As shown in the table, when generating 10000 concurrent flows, the CP is 0.0115; when generating 100000 concurrent flows, the CP rises to 0.6860. If K=20th power of 2 is taken, which corresponds to 20-bit Flow ID space, when generating
   10000 concurrent flows, we can calculate the collision probability will drastically rises to approximately 100%. In practical deployment scenarios of large-scale networks, the concurrent measurement flows could reach orders of magnitude of 100000 or even higher, thus the collision probability will rise sharply.</t>

	   <t>It is preferred that Flow ID be assigned by the centralized controller.  Since the controller knows the network topology, it can allocate the value properly to guarantee the uniqueness of Flow ID allocation.</t>

	   <t>In some cases where the centralized controller is not available and the distributed way must be adopted, every source node (encapsulating node) needs to allocate Flow ID independently. In order to avoid the collision, Flow ID field may be devided into two sub-fields: NodeID and FlowMonID. NodeID is assigned uniquely in measurement domain (by the unified planning)and FlowMonID is assigned randomly and uniquely in a device. The length allocation of the two sub-fields depends on practical implementation, for example, NodeID uses 20 bits and FlowMonID uses 12 bits, or both use an average of 16 bits.</t>   
    </section>    

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <section title="IOAM Type">
        <t>The "IOAM Option-Type" registry is defined in Section 7.1 of
        [RFC9197].</t>

        <t>IANA is requested to allocate the following code point from the
        "IOAM Option-Type" registry as follows:</t>

        <t>Code Point: TBA</t>
        <t>Name:  IOAM Extended Trace Option Type</t>
        <t>Description: IOAM Trace Option Type</t>
        <t>Reference: This document</t>

        <t>If possible, IANA is requested to allocate code point 6(TBA-type).</t>
        
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Performance Considerations">
      <t>The Extended Trace Option-Type triggers IOAM trace data to be filled in live data packets and performance measurement data to be exported to a receiving entity. The performance impact from IOAM trace data could be limited by only on subsets of the live user traffic, e.g., per interface, based on an access control list or flow specification defining a specific set of traffic, etc.</t>

      <t>Performance measurement is implemented based on the
      Alternate-Marking Method. In Hop-by-Hop mode for loss measurement,
      every node along the path exports only a packet carrying counter value
      of each measurement block including a batch of packets; In End-to-End
      mode for loss measurement, only the IOAM encapsulating node and the IOAM
      decapsulating node export a packet carrying counter value of each
      measurement block. Similarly, in Hop-by-Hop mode for delay measurement, every node along the path exports one or multiple packets carrying the timestamps of the marked packets in each measurement block; In End-to-End mode for delay measurement, only the IOAM encapsulating node and the IOAM decapsulating node export one or multiple packets carrying the timestamps of the same marked packets in each measurement block. Because of the very small amount of exported traffic, it would not affect the network bandwidth and would not overload the receiving entity.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="scecurity" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
      [RFC9197], and the security considerations of the Alternate-Marking method are discussed in [RFC9394]. There are not additional security considerations
      in this Extended IOAM DEX Option-Type.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9197.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9326.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9341.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9343.xml"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9486.xml"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.he-ippm-ioam-dex-extensions-incorporating-am.xml"?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>