draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-07.txt   draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-08.txt 
OPSAWG T. Graf OPSAWG T. Graf
Internet-Draft Swisscom Internet-Draft Swisscom
Intended status: Standards Track G. Fioccola Intended status: Standards Track G. Fioccola
Expires: 30 January 2027 T. Zhou Expires: 27 February 2027 T. Zhou
Huawei Huawei
Y. Zhu Y. Zhu
China Telecom China Telecom
29 July 2026 26 August 2026
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Alternate-Marking Information IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Alternate-Marking Information
Elements Elements
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-07 draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-08
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Information Elements (IEs) to export Alternate Marking measurement Information Elements (IEs) to export Alternate Marking measurement
data. data.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 30 January 2027. This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 February 2027.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. AltMark IPFIX Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. AltMark IPFIX Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Flow Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Flow Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Flow Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Flow Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. altmarkFlowMonID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. altmarkFlowMonID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Loss flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Loss flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Delay flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Delay flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Period Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Period Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. AltMark Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. AltMark Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Loss Measurement Flow Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1. Loss Measurement Flow Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2. Delay Measurement Flow Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.2. Delay Measurement Flow Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Alternate-Marking Method (AltMark) [RFC9341] [RFC9342] is a technique Alternate-Marking Method (AltMark) [RFC9341] [RFC9342] is a technique
used to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter on in-flight packets. used to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter on in-flight packets.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] provides a framework for [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] provides a framework for
Alternate Marking deployments and includes considerations and Alternate Marking deployments and includes considerations and
guidance for application and methodology. The IP Flow Information guidance for application and methodology. It is the key document to
Export (IPFIX) protocol [RFC7011] [RFC7012] is considered for data consider for the AltMark deployment. The IP Flow Information Export
export in Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment]. (IPFIX) protocol [RFC7011] [RFC7012] is considered for data export in
Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment].
[RFC7012] defines the data types and management policy for the [RFC7012] defines the data types and management policy for the
information model of the IPFIX protocol [RFC7011]. This document information model of the IPFIX protocol [RFC7011]. This document
defines the new IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) for the Alternate defines the new IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) for the Alternate
Marking Method. Marking Method.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
2. AltMark IPFIX Information Elements 2. AltMark IPFIX Information Elements
This section describes existing Information Elements (IEs) This section describes existing Information Elements (IEs)
[IANA-IPFIX] that are relevant for the Alternate Marking application [IANA-IPFIX] that are relevant for the Alternate Marking application
and also introduces new IEs. and also introduces new IEs.
With AltMark [RFC9341] [RFC9342], each node needs to export the With AltMark [RFC9341] [RFC9342], each node needs to export the
packet counters and timestamps at each period for the monitored flow, packet counters and timestamps at each period for the monitored flow,
according to AltMark operation. To identify and export telemetry according to AltMark operation. To identify and export telemetry
data for an AltMark monitored flow, it is needed a combination of data for an AltMark monitored flow, A combination of already existing
already existing IEs and new IEs, which are introduced in this IEs and new IEs is needed, and the new IEs are introduced in this
document. A flow can be identified using IEs such as source address, document. A flow can be identified using IEs such as source address,
destination address, protocol and ports. But, according to [RFC9343] destination address, protocol and ports. But, according to [RFC9343]
and its AltMark protocol extensions, it is also necessary to define and its AltMark protocol extensions, it is also necessary to define
new IEs (the flow identifier FlowMonID, the Period Number, the Loss new IEs (the flow identifier FlowMonID, the Period Number, the Loss
flag and the Delay flag) to complete the AltMark information to be flag and the Delay flag) to complete the AltMark information to be
exported. exported.
2.1. Flow Aggregation 2.1. Flow Aggregation
To use IPFIX for exporting AltMark data, it is necessary to aggregate To use IPFIX for exporting AltMark data, it is necessary to aggregate
skipping to change at page 4, line 18 skipping to change at page 4, line 18
and Delay flag, that need to be used for data aggregation. The and Delay flag, that need to be used for data aggregation. The
existing Information Element (IE) that could be employed is existing Information Element (IE) that could be employed is
ipPayloadPacketSection(IE314), defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC7133], ipPayloadPacketSection(IE314), defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC7133],
because any extension header present is considered part of the because any extension header present is considered part of the
payload. However, ipPayloadPacketSection should be decomposed to payload. However, ipPayloadPacketSection should be decomposed to
export the relevant data, that need to be extracted, parsed, and export the relevant data, that need to be extracted, parsed, and
exposed from the ipPayloadPacketSection. For this reason, the use of exposed from the ipPayloadPacketSection. For this reason, the use of
the existing IEs is not the best option and, therefore, this document the existing IEs is not the best option and, therefore, this document
introduces a better approach by defining new IEs. introduces a better approach by defining new IEs.
New IPFIX Information Elements are needed so that the data can now be New IPFIX IEs are needed so that the data can now be aggregated
aggregated easily. The new IEs defined in this document are: easily. The new IEs defined in this document are: altmarkFlowMonID
altmarkFlowMonID (TBD1), altmarkLossFlag (TBD2) and altmarkDelayFlag (TBD1), altmarkLossFlag (TBD2) and altmarkDelayFlag (TBD3).
(TBD3). Therefore altmarkFlowMonID, altmarkLossFlag and Therefore altmarkFlowMonID, altmarkLossFlag and altmarkDelayFlag can
altmarkDelayFlag are Flow Key fields for the AltMark flow be used as Flow Key fields for the AltMark flow aggregation.
aggregation.
2.2. Flow Correlation 2.2. Flow Correlation
The following IPFIX IEs can be used to describe the flow on the The following IPFIX IEs can be used to describe the flow on the
different nodes: different nodes:
* ingressInterface(IE10) * ingressInterface(IE10)
* egressInterface(IE14) * egressInterface(IE14)
skipping to change at page 5, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
* protocolIdentifier(IE4) * protocolIdentifier(IE4)
In addition to the existing IEs above, the new IEs defined in this In addition to the existing IEs above, the new IEs defined in this
document are also added for the AltMark monitored flows. document are also added for the AltMark monitored flows.
* altmarkFlowMonID (TBD1) * altmarkFlowMonID (TBD1)
* altmarkLossFlag (TBD2) * altmarkLossFlag (TBD2)
* altmarkDelayFlag (TBD3) * altmarkDelayFlag (TBD3)
It is worth mentioning that not all the above IEs are necessary to
identify a monitored flow and it depends on the specific application
and monitoring type.
Note that, in case of Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interface, the Note that, in case of Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interface, the
ingressInterface IE and egressInterface IE can be used to refer the ingressInterface IE and egressInterface IE can be used to refer the
logical LAG port, while ingressPhysicalInterface IE and logical LAG port, while ingressPhysicalInterface IE and
egressPhysicalInterface IE can be used to indicate the physical egressPhysicalInterface IE can be used to indicate the physical
interfaces which are members of the LAG port. interfaces which are members of the LAG port.
2.3. Flow Measurements 2.3. Flow Measurements
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] describes how to manage and [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] describes how to manage and
deploy the AltMark method and IPFIX can be used to export the deploy the AltMark method and IPFIX can be used to export the
telemetry data to the Network Management System (NMS). telemetry data to the Network Management System (NMS).
An Alternate-Marking Domain consists of marking nodes, unmarking An Alternate-Marking Domain consists of marking nodes, unmarking
nodes, and transit nodes. These nodes are all IPFIX Observation nodes, and transit nodes. These nodes can include IPFIX Observation
Points, while the IPFIX Observation Domain is the AltMark measurement Points, and form IPFIX Observation Domains within the AltMark
domain. measurement domain.
As specified in the previous sections, the Flow Keys used to define a As specified in the previous sections, the Flow Keys used to define a
flow are, at minimum, altmarkFlowMonID (TBD1), altmarkLossFlag (TBD2) flow are, at minimum, altmarkFlowMonID (TBD1) and altmarkLossFlag
and altmarkDelayFlag (TBD3). The traditional '5-tuple' Flow Key of (TBD2) for loss measurements, and altmarkFlowMonID (TBD1) and
source and destination IP address, source and destination transport altmarkDelayFlag (TBD3) for delay measurements. The traditional
port, and transport protocol can be selected as additional Flow Keys, '5-tuple' Flow Key of source and destination IP address, source and
next to the altmarkFlowMonID, altmarkLossFlag and altmarkDelayFlag. destination transport port, and transport protocol can be selected as
additional Flow Keys, next to the altmarkFlowMonID, altmarkLossFlag
and altmarkDelayFlag.
The AltMark Flows are defined separately for loss measurements and The AltMark Flows are defined separately for loss measurements and
delay measurements. In particular, the flow for loss measurements delay measurements. In particular, the flow for loss measurements
can be identified by the altmarkFlowMonID, the altmarkLossFlag (and can be identified by the altmarkFlowMonID, the altmarkLossFlag (and
potentially the extra Key Fields, if configured); while the flow for potentially the extra Key Fields, if configured); while the flow for
delay measurements can be identified by the altmarkFlowMonID, the delay measurements can be identified by the altmarkFlowMonID, the
altmarkDelayFlag (and potentially the extra Key Fields, if altmarkDelayFlag (and potentially the extra Key Fields, if
configured). configured).
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] also introduces the [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] also introduces the concept of
altmarkPeriodNumber (TBD4), which is needed for Alternate-Marking Period Number (PN), which is needed for Alternate-Marking measurement
measurement correlation. correlation. This document defines the corresponding IPFIX IE
altmarkPeriodNumber (TBD4).
The Flow Record, which is observed at each Observation Point, The Flow Record, which is observed at each Observation Point,
contains the characteristic properties of the Flow together with the contains the characteristic properties of the Flow together with the
measured properties (i.e., packet count and timestamps). measured properties (i.e., packet count and timestamps).
Furthermore, as specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment], the Furthermore, as specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment], the
altmarkPeriodNumber (TBD4) is calculated on each Observation Point as altmarkPeriodNumber (TBD4) is calculated on each Observation Point as
the modulo of the local time and the interval of the marking time the modulo of the local time and the interval of the marking time
period. The altmarkPeriodNumber is associated to each Flow Record. period. The altmarkPeriodNumber is associated to each Flow Record.
Together with the Key Fields, the Flow Records typically export the Together with the Key Fields, the Flow Records typically export the
altmarkPeriodNumber and the packetDeltaCount(IE2) for the loss altmarkPeriodNumber and the packetDeltaCount(IE2) for the loss
measurement, while they typically export the altmarkPeriodNumber and measurement, while they typically export the altmarkPeriodNumber and
the flowStartMicroseconds(IE154), flowEndMicroseconds(IE155) for the the flowStartMicroseconds(IE154), flowEndMicroseconds(IE155) for the
delay measurements. delay measurements. It is to be noted that
flowStartMicroseconds(IE154) and flowEndMicroseconds(IE155) can also
be used interchangeably.
The AltMark marking, transit and unmarking nodes can be Exporters and The AltMark marking, transit and unmarking nodes can be Exporters and
export the data record. The periodicity or export policy is export the data record. The periodicity or export policy is
configurable and it must be in line with the AltMark period, as configurable and it must be in line with the AltMark period, as
specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment]. specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment].
There are two options for the computation: There are two options for the computation:
The NMS acts as Collector. The loss and delay metrics are The NMS acts as Collector. The loss and delay metrics are
computed on the NMS by comparing the packet counts and timestamps computed on the NMS by comparing the packet counts and timestamps
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
3.1. altmarkFlowMonID 3.1. altmarkFlowMonID
Name: altmarkFlowMonID Name: altmarkFlowMonID
Element ID: TBD1 Element ID: TBD1
Description: The Flow Monitoring Identification (FlowMonID) is Description: The Flow Monitoring Identification (FlowMonID) is
described in [RFC9343] and identifies the monitored flows with described in [RFC9343] and identifies the monitored flows with
AltMark. It is 20-bit unsigned integer encoded in the 20 least AltMark. It is 20-bit unsigned integer encoded in the 20 least
significant bits of the 32 bits, while the other bits are set to 0. significant bits of the 32 bits, while the other bits are set to 0.
As specified in [RFC9343], it can be set pseudo-randomly by the The 12 most significant bits MUST be set to zero by the Exporter and
source node or by a centralized controller. Note that it corresponds MUST be ignored by the Collector. As specified in [RFC9343], it can
to the flow-mon-id parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang] be set pseudo-randomly by the source node or by a centralized
and [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]. controller. Note that it corresponds to the flow-mon-id parameter
defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang] and
[I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]. It can also correspond to
the Flow-ID Label, specified in [RFC9714].
Abstract Data Type: unsigned32 Abstract Data Type: unsigned32
Data Type Semantics: identifier Data Type Semantics: identifier
Range: The valid range is 0-1048575
3.2. Loss flag 3.2. Loss flag
Name: altmarkLossFlag Name: altmarkLossFlag
Element ID: TBD2 Element ID: TBD2
Description: Loss flag (L flag) for Packet Loss Measurement as Description: Loss flag (L flag) for Packet Loss Measurement as
described in [RFC9343]. Note that it corresponds to the loss-flag described in [RFC9343]. Note that it corresponds to the loss-flag
parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]. parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]. It can
also correspond to the L bit, specified in [RFC9714].
Abstract Data Type: boolean Abstract Data Type: boolean
Data Type Semantics: default Data Type Semantics: default
3.3. Delay flag 3.3. Delay flag
Name: altmarkDelayFlag Name: altmarkDelayFlag
Element ID: TBD3 Element ID: TBD3
Description: Delay flag (D flag) for Single Packet Delay Measurement Description: Delay flag (D flag) for Single Packet Delay Measurement
as described in [RFC9343]. Note that it corresponds to the delay- as described in [RFC9343]. Note that it corresponds to the delay-
flag parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]. flag parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]. It
can also correspond to the D bit, specified in [RFC9714].
Abstract Data Type: boolean Abstract Data Type: boolean
Data Type Semantics: default Data Type Semantics: default
3.4. Period Number 3.4. Period Number
Name: altmarkPeriodNumber Name: altmarkPeriodNumber
Element ID: TBD4 Element ID: TBD4
skipping to change at page 9, line 6 skipping to change at page 9, line 17
Data Type Semantics: identifier Data Type Semantics: identifier
4. Operational Considerations 4. Operational Considerations
The operational and management considerations for the Alternate The operational and management considerations for the Alternate
Marking Method are covered in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment], Marking Method are covered in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment],
Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking
[RFC9342]. [RFC9342].
There are specific considerations to do with regard to the IPFIX There are specific considerations to do with regard to the IPFIX
exporting. The export interval and the marking period must be exporting. The export interval and the marking period MUST be
aligned and the exporting should be done in the middle of the period, aligned and the exporting SHOULD be done in the middle of the period,
as described in Alternate Marking [RFC9341]. Also, in case of missed as described in Alternate Marking [RFC9341]. Also, in case of missed
exports the corresponding interval is not considered for the exports the corresponding interval is not considered for the
measurement. While, if the AltMark period changes, the export measurement. While, if the AltMark period changes, the export
interval must be modified accordingly. interval MUST be modified accordingly.
Further details about the method operation are specified for the Further details about the method operation are specified for the
different extensions: IPv6 [RFC9343], SRH [RFC9947], and MPLS different extensions: IPv6 [RFC9343], SRH [RFC9947], and MPLS
[RFC9714]. [RFC9714].
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking
[RFC9342] analyze different security concerns and related solutions. [RFC9342] analyze different security concerns and related solutions.
These aspects are valid and applicable also to this document. In These aspects are valid and applicable also to this document. In
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 9, line 48
of these new IPFIX IEs compared to [RFC7012]. The IEs described in of these new IPFIX IEs compared to [RFC7012]. The IEs described in
this document export AltMark telemetry data. Applications and this document export AltMark telemetry data. Applications and
operators using the IEs described in this document must evaluate the operators using the IEs described in this document must evaluate the
sensitivity of this information in their implementation context and sensitivity of this information in their implementation context and
apply the storage guidance in Section 11.8 of [RFC7011] as apply the storage guidance in Section 11.8 of [RFC7011] as
appropriate. appropriate.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors of this document would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Alex The authors of this document would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Alex
Huang Feng, Mohamed Boucadair, Benoit Claise for their comments and Huang Feng, Mohamed Boucadair, Benoit Claise, Paul Aitken for their
reviews. comments and reviews.
7. Contributors 7. Contributors
Mauro Cociglio Mauro Cociglio
Email: mauro.cociglio@outlook.com Email: mauro.cociglio@outlook.com
Fabio Bulgarella Fabio Bulgarella
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
Email: fabio.bulgarella@guest.telecomitalia.it Email: fabio.bulgarella@guest.telecomitalia.it
Massimo Nilo Massimo Nilo
FiberCop FiberCop
Email: massimo.nilo@fibercop.com Email: massimo.nilo@fibercop.com
skipping to change at page 10, line 35 skipping to change at page 10, line 44
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
[RFC7015] Trammell, B., Wagner, A., and B. Claise, "Flow Aggregation [RFC7015] Trammell, B., Wagner, A., and B. Claise, "Flow Aggregation
for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol", for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol",
RFC 7015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7015, September 2013, RFC 7015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7015, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7015>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7015>.
[RFC7133] Kashima, S., Kobayashi, A., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic
Measurement", RFC 7133, DOI 10.17487/RFC7133, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7133>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., [RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341, and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022, DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.
[RFC9342] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and [RFC9342] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and
skipping to change at page 11, line 35 skipping to change at page 11, line 40
"Alternate Marking Deployment Framework", Work in "Alternate Marking Deployment Framework", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark- Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-
deployment-07, 3 July 2026, deployment-07, 3 July 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
alt-mark-deployment-07>. alt-mark-deployment-07>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang] [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang]
Graf, T., Wang, M., Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and X. Min, "A Graf, T., Wang, M., Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and X. Min, "A
YANG Data Model for the Alternate Marking Method", Work in YANG Data Model for the Alternate Marking Method", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang- Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang-
05, 11 June 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ 05, 28 July 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang-05>. draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang-05>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang] [I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Zhu, Y., Zhang, W., and K. Zhu, Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Zhu, Y., Zhang, W., and K. Zhu,
"On-Path Telemetry YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, "On-Path Telemetry YANG Data Model", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-04, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-05,
3 July 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- 28 July 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-04>. draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-05>.
[IANA-IPFIX] [IANA-IPFIX]
"IANA, IPFIX", "IANA, IPFIX",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml>.
[RFC7133] Kashima, S., Kobayashi, A., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic
Measurement", RFC 7133, DOI 10.17487/RFC7133, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7133>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet [RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020, Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
[RFC9947] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Mishra, G., Wang, X., Zhang, G., [RFC9947] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Mishra, G., Wang, X., Zhang, G.,
skipping to change at page 12, line 26 skipping to change at page 13, line 4
Performance Metrics in IP Flow Information Export Performance Metrics in IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX)", RFC 9951, DOI 10.17487/RFC9951, April 2026, (IPFIX)", RFC 9951, DOI 10.17487/RFC9951, April 2026,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9951>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9951>.
Appendix A. AltMark Examples Appendix A. AltMark Examples
This appendix represents two different examples for the loss and This appendix represents two different examples for the loss and
delay measurements. delay measurements.
A.1. Loss Measurement Flow Record A.1. Loss Measurement Flow Record
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SET ID = 2 | Length = 40 | | SET ID = 2 | Length = 32 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID = 256 | Field Count = 8 | | Template ID = 256 | Field Count = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| sourceIPv6Address = 27 | Field Length = 16 | |0| sourceIPv6Address = 27 | Field Length = 16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| destinationIPv6Address = 28 | Field Length = 16 | |0| destinationIPv6Address = 28 | Field Length = 16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| altmarkFlowMonID = TBD1 | Field Length = 4 | |0| altmarkFlowMonID = TBD1 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| altmarkLossFlag = TBD2 | Field Length = 1 | |0| altmarkLossFlag = TBD2 | Field Length = 1 |
skipping to change at page 13, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 27
|0| altmarkLossFlag = TBD2 | Field Length = 1 | |0| altmarkLossFlag = TBD2 | Field Length = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| altmarkPeriodNumber = TBD4 | Field Length = 4 | |0| altmarkPeriodNumber = TBD4 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| packetDeltaCount = 2 | Field Length = 8 | |0| packetDeltaCount = 2 | Field Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Template Record for Loss Measurements Figure 1: Template Record for Loss Measurements
A.2. Delay Measurement Flow Record A.2. Delay Measurement Flow Record
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SET ID = 2 | Length = 40 | | SET ID = 2 | Length = 32 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID = 257 | Field Count = 8 | | Template ID = 257 | Field Count = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| sourceIPv6Address = 27 | Field Length = 16 | |0| sourceIPv6Address = 27 | Field Length = 16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| destinationIPv6Address = 28 | Field Length = 16 | |0| destinationIPv6Address = 28 | Field Length = 16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| altmarkFlowMonID = TBD1 | Field Length = 4 | |0| altmarkFlowMonID = TBD1 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| altmarkDelayFlag = TBD3 | Field Length = 4 | |0| altmarkDelayFlag = TBD3 | Field Length = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| altmarkPeriodNumber = TBD4 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| flowStartMicroseconds = 154 | Field Length = 8 | |0| flowStartMicroseconds = 154 | Field Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Template Record for Delay Measurements Figure 2: Template Record for Delay Measurements
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Thomas Graf Thomas Graf
Swisscom Swisscom
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 75 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.49. The latest version is available from https://github.com/ietf-tools/rfcdiff