path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9630.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           H. Song
Request for Comments: 9630                                    M. McBride
Category: Standards Track                         Futurewei Technologies
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                               G. Mishra
                                                            Verizon Inc.
                                                               H. Asaeda
                                                                    NICT
                                                                 T. Zhou
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                             August 2024


 Multicast On-Path Telemetry Using In Situ Operations, Administration,
                         and Maintenance (IOAM)

Abstract

   This document specifies two solutions to meet the requirements of on-
   path telemetry for multicast traffic using IOAM.  While IOAM is
   advantageous for multicast traffic telemetry, some unique challenges
   are present.  This document provides the solutions based on the IOAM
   trace option and direct export option to support the telemetry data
   correlation and the multicast tree reconstruction without incurring
   data redundancy.

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/rfc9630.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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
     1.1.  Requirements Language
   2.  Requirements for Multicast Traffic Telemetry
   3.  Issues of Existing Techniques
   4.  Modifications and Extensions Based on Existing Solutions
     4.1.  Per-Hop Postcard Using IOAM DEX
     4.2.  Per-Section Postcard for IOAM Trace
   5.  Application Considerations for Multicast Protocols
     5.1.  Mtrace Version 2
     5.2.  Application in PIM
     5.3.  Application of MVPN PMSI Tunnel Attribute
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  IANA Considerations
   8.  References
     8.1.  Normative References
     8.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   IP multicast has had many useful applications for several decades.
   [MULTICAST-LESSONS-LEARNED] provides a thorough historical
   perspective about the design and deployment of many of the multicast
   routing protocols in use with various applications.  We will mention
   of few of these throughout this document and in the Application
   Considerations section (Section 5).  IP multicast has been used by
   residential broadband customers across operator networks, private
   MPLS customers, and internal customers within corporate intranets.
   IP multicast has provided real-time interactive online meetings or
   podcasts, IPTV, and financial markets' real-time data, all of which
   rely on UDP's unreliable transport.  End-to-end QoS, therefore,
   should be a critical component of multicast deployments in order to
   provide a good end-user experience within a specific operational
   domain.  In multicast real-time media streaming, if a single packet
   is lost within a keyframe and cannot be recovered using forward error
   correction, many receivers will be unable to decode subsequent frames
   within the Group of Pictures (GoP), which results in video freezes or
   black pictures until another keyframe is delivered.  Unexpectedly
   long delays in delivery of packets can cause timeouts with similar
   results.  Multicast packet loss and delays can therefore affect
   application performance and the user experience within a domain.

   It is essential to monitor the performance of multicast traffic.  New
   on-path telemetry techniques, such as IOAM [RFC9197], IOAM Direct
   Export (DEX) [RFC9326], IOAM Postcard-Based Telemetry - Marking (PBT-
   M) [POSTCARD-TELEMETRY], and Hybrid Two-Step (HTS) [HYBRID-TWO-STEP],
   complement existing active OAM performance monitoring methods like
   ICMP ping [RFC0792].  However, multicast traffic's unique
   characteristics present challenges in applying these techniques
   efficiently.

   The IP multicast packet data for a particular (S,G) state remains
   identical across different branches to multiple receivers [RFC7761].
   When IOAM trace data is added to multicast packets, each replicated
   packet retains telemetry data for its entire forwarding path.  This
   results in redundant data collection for common path segments,
   unnecessarily consuming extra network bandwidth.  For large multicast
   trees, this redundancy is substantial.  Using solutions like IOAM DEX
   could be more efficient by eliminating data redundancy, but IOAM DEX
   lacks a branch identifier, complicating telemetry data correlation
   and multicast tree reconstruction.

   This document 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 and
   extensions to make these techniques adapt to multicast in order for
   the original multicast tree to be correctly reconstructed while
   eliminating redundant data.  This document does not cover the
   operational considerations such as how to enable the telemetry on a
   subset of the traffic to avoid overloading the network or the data
   collector.

1.1.  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.  Requirements for Multicast Traffic Telemetry

   Multicast traffic is forwarded through a multicast tree.  With PIM
   [RFC7761] and Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP), the forwarding tree is
   established and maintained by the multicast routing protocol.

   The requirements for multicast traffic telemetry that are addressed
   by the solutions in this document 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.

   In order to meet all of 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], trace [RFC8487], and RTCP [RFC3605], are
   not sufficient to meet all of these requirements.  The telemetry
   methods in this document meet these requirements by providing
   granular hop-by-hop network monitoring along with the reduction of
   data redundancy.

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 IOAM Trace option [RFC9197], IOAM DEX option [RFC9326], and
   PBT-M [POSTCARD-TELEMETRY].  However, unlike unicast, multicast poses
   some unique challenges to applying these techniques.

   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.

   When the IOAM trace option is utilized for on-path data collection,
   partial trace data is replicated into the packet copy for each branch
   of the multicast tree.  Consequently, at the leaves of the multicast
   tree, each copy of the multicast packet contains a complete trace.
   This results in data redundancy, as most of the data (except from the
   final leaf branch) appears in multiple copies, where only one is
   sufficient.  This redundancy introduces unnecessary header overhead,
   wastes network bandwidth, and complicates 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 eliminate data
   redundancy because each node on the multicast tree sends a postcard
   with only local data.  However, these methods cannot accurately track
   and correlate the tree branches due to the absence of branching
   information.  For instance, in the multicast tree shown in Figure 1,
   Node B has two branches, one to Node C and the other to node D;
   further, Node C leads to Node E, and Node D leads to Node F (not
   shown).  When applying postcard-based methods, it is impossible to
   determine whether Node E is the next hop of Node C or Node D 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 and Extensions Based on Existing Solutions

   We provide two solutions to address the above issues.  One is based
   on IOAM DEX and requires an extension to the DEX Option-Type header.
   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.  This works
   for the IOAM DEX option because the DEX Option-Type header can be
   used to hold the branch identifier.  To make the branch identifier
   globally unique, the Branching Node ID plus an index is used.  For
   example, as shown in Figure 1, Node B has two branches: one to Node C
   and the other to Node D.  Node B may use [B, 0] as the branch
   identifier for the branch to C, and [B, 1] for the branch to D.  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 braces contain 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., Multicast Branch ID) for each branch in its multicast tree
   instance and include it in the IOAM DEX Option-Type header.  The
   Multicast Branch ID remains unchanged until the next branch fork
   node.  The Multicast Branch ID contains two parts: the Branching Node
   ID and an Interface Index.

   Conforming to the node ID specification in IOAM [RFC9197], the
   Branching Node ID is a 3-octet unsigned integer.  The Interface Index
   is a two-octet unsigned integer.  As shown in Figure 2, the Multicast
   Branch ID consumes 8 octets in total.  The three unused octets MUST
   be set to 0; otherwise, the header is considered malformed and the
   packet MUST be dropped.

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       Branching Node ID                       |     unused    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       Interface Index         |           unused              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 2: Multicast Branch ID Format

   Figure 3 shows that the Multicast 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 Multicast Branch ID field.  "N" stands
   for the Branching 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.  Two Extension-Flag bits are used because [RFC9326]
   specifies that each extension flag only indicates the presence of a
   4-octet optional data field, while we need more than 4 octets to
   encode the Multicast Branch ID.  The two flag bits MUST be both set
   or cleared; otherwise, the header is considered malformed and the
   packet MUST be dropped.

     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 (as shown in Figure 2)           |
    |                            (optional)                         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 3: Carrying the Multicast Branch ID in the IOAM DEX
                             Option-Type Header

   Once a node gets the branch ID information from the upstream node, it
   MUST carry this information in its telemetry data export postcards so
   the original multicast tree can be correctly reconstructed based on
   the postcards.

4.2.  Per-Section Postcard for IOAM Trace

   The second solution is a combination of the IOAM trace option
   [RFC9197] and the postcard-based telemetry [IFIT-FRAMEWORK].  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 the common data shared by all the
   replicated packets (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, as well as the leaf nodes, to export the postcards that
   contain the trace data collected so far and refresh the IOAM header
   and data in the packet (e.g., clear the node data list to all zeros
   and reset the RemainingLen field to the initial value).

5.  Application Considerations for Multicast Protocols

5.1.  Mtrace Version 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 the receiver to
   the source.  An Mtrace2 client sends an Mtrace2 Query to a Last-Hop
   Router (LHR), and the LHR forwards the packet as an Mtrace2 Request
   towards the source or a Rendezvous Point (RP) after appending a
   response block.  Each router along the path proceeds with the same
   operations.  When the First-Hop Router (FHR) receives the Request
   packet, it appends its own 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 real-time network
   status data through direct measurements.  There are various multicast
   protocols that are used to forward the multicast data.  Each will
   require its 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 - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC7761] is the most widely used
   multicast routing protocol deployed today.  PIM - Source-Specific
   Multicast (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 for IPv4 and ff00::/8 for IPv6.
   The telemetry solution will need to work within these IP address
   ranges 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 [RFC9486].

5.3.  Application of MVPN PMSI Tunnel Attribute

   IOAM, and the recommendations of this document, are equally
   applicable to multicast MPLS forwarded packets as described in
   [RFC6514].  Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP), P2MP RSVP-
   TE, Ingress Replication (IR), and PIM Multicast Distribution Tree
   (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
   extensions for P2MP and multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP) label
   switched paths (LSPs) [RFC6388] provide extensions to LDP to
   establish point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and MP2MP LSPs in 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.

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 to limit the exported traffic
   rate, we can also allow 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

   IANA has registered two Extension-Flags, as described in Section 4.1,
   in the "IOAM DEX Extension-Flags" registry.

         +=====+=====================================+===========+
         | Bit | Description                         | Reference |
         +=====+=====================================+===========+
         | 2   | Multicast Branching Node ID         | This RFC  |
         +-----+-------------------------------------+-----------+
         | 3   | Multicast Branching Interface Index | This RFC  |
         +-----+-------------------------------------+-----------+

                     Table 1: IOAM DEX Extension-Flags

8.  References

8.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [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-01, 5 July 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
              hybrid-two-step-01>.

   [IFIT-FRAMEWORK]
              Song, H., Qin, F., Chen, H., Jin, J., and J. Shin,
              "Framework for In-situ Flow Information Telemetry", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-opsawg-ifit-
              framework-21, 23 October 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-opsawg-
              ifit-framework-21>.

   [MULTICAST-LESSONS-LEARNED]
              Farinacci, D., Giuliano, L., McBride, M., and N. Warnke,
              "Multicast Lessons Learned from Decades of Deployment
              Experience", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              pim-multicast-lessons-learned-04, 22 July 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-
              multicast-lessons-learned-04>.

   [POSTCARD-TELEMETRY]
              Song, H., Mirsky, G., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Graf, T., Mishra,
              G., 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>.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.

   [RFC3605]  Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
              in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3605, October 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3605>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9486]  Bhandari, S., Ed. and F. Brockners, Ed., "IPv6 Options for
              In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
              (IOAM)", RFC 9486, DOI 10.17487/RFC9486, September 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9486>.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Gunter Van de Velde, Brett Sheffield,
   Éric Vyncke, Frank Brockners, Nils Warnke, Jake Holland, Dino
   Farinacci, Henrik Nydell, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, and Toerless Eckert
   for their comments and suggestions.

Authors' Addresses

   Haoyu Song
   Futurewei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA
   United States of America
   Email: hsong@futurewei.com


   Mike McBride
   Futurewei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA
   United States of America
   Email: mmcbride@futurewei.com


   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   United States of America
   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


   Gyan Mishra
   Verizon Inc.
   United States of America
   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