RFC 9740: New IPFIX Information Elements for TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers
- M. Boucadair,
- B. Claise
Abstract
This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements (IEs) to solve issues with existing ipv6Extension
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://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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://
1. Introduction
This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC7011] Information Elements (IEs) to solve a set of issues encountered with the specifications of two IEs -- ipv6Extension
This document deprecates the ipv6Extension
Note that [RFC7012] obsoletes [RFC5102] and specifies that [IANA-IPFIX] is the normative reference for these IEs.¶
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.¶
This document uses the IPFIX-specific terminology (Information Element, Template Record, Flow, etc.) defined in Section 2 of [RFC7011]. As in the base IPFIX specification [RFC7011], these IPFIX-specific terms have the first letter of a word capitalized.¶
Also, the document uses the terms defined in the IPv6 [RFC8200] and TCP [RFC9293] specifications.¶
In addition, the document makes use of the following terms:¶
- Extension header chain:
-
Refers to the chain of extension headers that are present in an IPv6 packet.¶
This term should not be confused with the IPv6 header chain, which includes the IPv6 header, zero or more IPv6 extension headers, and zero or a single Upper-Layer Header.¶
- Flow with varying extension header chains:
-
Refers to a Flow where distinct extension header chains are observed. Concretely, different packets in such a Flow will have a different sequence of extension header type codes.¶
3. Information Elements for IPv6 Extension Headers
3.1. ipv6ExtensionHeaderType Information Element
- Name:
-
ipv6Extension
Header Type¶ - ElementID:
-
513¶
- Description:
-
Type of an IPv6 extension header observed in at least one packet of this Flow.¶
- Abstract Data Type:
-
unsigned8¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
identifier¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry at [IANA-EH].¶
See Section 4 of [RFC8200] for the general definition of IPv6 extension headers.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
3.2. ipv6ExtensionHeaderCount Information Element
- Name:
-
ipv6Extension
Header Count¶ - ElementID:
-
514¶
- Description:
-
The number of consecutive occurrences of the same extension header type in a Flow.¶
This IE is reported, e.g., in the ipv6Extension
Header Type Count List IE.¶ The type of the extension header is provided in the ipv6Extension
Header Type IE.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
unsigned8¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
totalCounter¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry at [IANA-EH].¶
See Section 4 of [RFC8200] for the general definition of IPv6 extension headers.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
3.3. ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull Information Element
- Name:
-
ipv6Extension
Headers Full¶ - ElementID:
-
515¶
- Description:
-
IPv6 extension headers observed in packets of this Flow. The information is encoded in a set of bit fields. For each IPv6 extension header, there is a bit in this set. The bit is set to 1 if any observed packet of this Flow contains the corresponding IPv6 extension header. Otherwise, if no observed packet of this Flow contains the respective IPv6 extension header, the value of the corresponding bit is 0.¶
The IPv6 extension header associated with each bit is provided in [IANA
-IPFIX ]. Bit 0 corresponds to the least significant bit (LSB) in the ipv6Extension-IPv6EH Headers Full IE, while bit 255 corresponds to the most significant bit (MSB) of the IE. In doing so, few octets will be needed to encode common IPv6 extension headers when observed in a Flow.¶ The "No Next Header" (bit 2) value (Section 4.7 of [RFC8200]) is used if there is no upper-layer header in an IPv6 packet. Even if the value is not considered as an extension header as such, the corresponding bit is set in the ipv6Extension
Headers Full IE whenever that value is encountered in the Flow.¶ Extension headers observed in a Flow with varying extension header chains MUST NOT be grouped in the ipv6Extension
Headers Full IE if the ipv6Extension Header Chain Length List IE is also present.¶ If the ipv6Extension
Header Chain Length List IE is not present, then extension headers observed in a Flow with varying extension header chains MAY be grouped in one single ipv6Extension Headers Full IE or be exported in separate ipv6Extension Headers Full IEs, one for each extension header chain.¶ The ipv6Extension
Headers Full IE MUST NOT be exported if ipv6Extension Header Type Count List IE is also present because of the overlapping scopes of these two IEs.¶ The value of ipv6Extension
Headers Full IE may be encoded in fewer octets per the guidelines in Section 6.2 of [RFC7011].¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
unsigned256¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
flags¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "IPFIX ipv6Extension
Headers Bits" registry at [IANA -IPFIX ].¶-IPv6EH See the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry at [IANA-EH].¶
See Section 4 of [RFC8200] for the general definition of IPv6 extension headers.¶
The ipv6Extension
Headers Full IE deprecates the ipv6Extension Headers IE (64) that was initially defined in [RFC5102].¶ [RFC7012] obsoletes [RFC5102] and specifies that [IANA-IPFIX] is the normative reference for the ipv6Extension
Headers IE (64).¶ - Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
3.4. ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList Information Element
- Name:
-
ipv6Extension
Header Type Count List¶ - ElementID:
-
516¶
- Description:
-
As per Section 4.1 of [RFC8200], IPv6 nodes must accept and attempt to process extension headers occurring any number of times in the same packet. This IE echoes the order of extension headers and number of consecutive occurrences of the same extension header type in a Flow.¶
This IE is a subTemplateList of ipv6Extension
Header Type and ipv6Extension Header Count IEs.¶ Each header chain in a Flow with varying extension header chains MUST be exported in a separate IE.¶
The same extension header type may appear several times in an ipv6Extension
Header Type Count List IE. For example, if an IPv6 packet of a Flow includes a Hop-by-Hop Options header, a Destination Options header, a Fragment header, and a Destination Options header, the ipv6Extension Header Type Count List IE will report:¶ If an implementation determines that an observed packet of a Flow includes an extension header (including an extension header that it does not support), then the exact observed code of that extension header MUST be echoed in the ipv6Extension
Header Type Count List IE. How an implementation disambiguates between unknown upper-layer protocols vs. extension headers is not IPFIX-specific. Refer, for example, to Section 2.2 of [RFC8883] for a behavior of an intermediate node that encounters an unknown Next Header type.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
subTemplateList¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
list¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry at [IANA-EH].¶
See Section 4 of [RFC8200] for the general definition of IPv6 extension headers.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
3.5. ipv6ExtensionHeadersLimit Information Element
- Name:
-
ipv6Extension
Headers Limit¶ - ElementID:
-
517¶
- Description:
-
When set to "false", this IE indicates that the exported extension header information (e.g., ipv6Extension
Headers Full or ipv6Extension Header Type Count List ) does not match the full enclosed extension headers, but only up to a limit that is typically set by hardware or software.¶ When set to "true", this IE indicates that the exported extension header information matches the full enclosed extension headers.¶
- Abstract Data Type:
-
boolean¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
default¶
- Additional Information:
-
See Section 4 of [RFC8200] for the general definition of IPv6 extension headers.¶
See [RFC8883] for an example of IPv6 packet processing due to limits on extension headers.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
3.6. ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength Information Element
- Name:
-
ipv6Extension
Headers Chain Length¶ - ElementID:
-
518¶
- Description:
-
In theory, there are no limits on the number of IPv6 extension headers that may be present in a packet other than the path MTU. However, it was regularly reported that IPv6 packets with extension headers were often dropped in the Internet (e.g., [RFC7872]).¶
As discussed in Section 1.2 of [RFC8883], some hardware devices implement a parsing buffer of a fixed size to process packets, including all the headers. When the aggregate length of headers of an IPv6 packet exceeds that size, the packet will be discarded or deferred to a slow path.¶
The ipv6Extension
Headers Chain Length IE is used to report, in octets, the length of an extension header chain observed in a Flow. The length is the sum of the lengths of all extension headers of the chain. Exporting such information might help identifying root causes of performance degradation, including packet drops.¶ Each header chain length of a Flow with varying extension header chains MUST be exported in a separate ipv6Extension
Headers Chain Length IE.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
unsigned32¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
identifier¶
- Units:
-
octets¶
- Additional Information:
-
See Section 4 of [RFC8200] for the general definition of IPv6 extension headers.¶
See [RFC9098] for an overview of operational implications of IPv6 packets with extension headers.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
3.7. ipv6ExtensionHeaderChainLengthList Information Element
- Name:
-
ipv6Extension
Header Chain Length List¶ - ElementID:
-
519¶
- Description:
-
This IE is used to report the chains and their lengths as observed in a Flow with varying extension header chains.¶
This IE is a subTemplateList of ipv6Extension
Headers Full and ipv6Extension Headers Chain Length IEs.¶ If several extension header chains are observed in a Flow, each header chain MUST be exported in a separate ipv6Extension
Header Chain Length List IE.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
subTemplateList¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
list¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry at [IANA-EH].¶
See Section 4 of [RFC8200] for the general definition of IPv6 extension headers.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
4. Information Elements for TCP Options
4.1. tcpOptionsFull Information Element
This section specifies a new IE to cover the full TCP options range.¶
- Name:
-
tcpOptionsFull¶
- ElementID:
-
520¶
- Description:
-
TCP options in packets of this Flow. The information is encoded in a set of bit fields. For each TCP option, there is a bit in this set. The bit is set to 1 if any observed packet of this Flow contains the corresponding TCP option. Otherwise, if no observed packet of this Flow contains the respective TCP option, the value of the corresponding bit is 0.¶
Options are mapped to bits according to their option numbers. TCP option Kind 0 corresponds to the least significant bit in the tcpOptionsFull IE, while Kind 255 corresponds to the most significant bit of the IE. This approach allows an observer to export any observed TCP option even if it does not support that option and without requiring updating a mapping table.¶
The value of tcpOptionsFull IE may be encoded in fewer octets per the guidelines in Section 6.2 of [RFC7011].¶
The presence of tcp
Shared Option Ex ID16List or tcp Shared Option Ex ID32List IEs is an indication that a shared TCP option (Kind=253 or 254) is observed in a Flow. The presence of tcp Shared Option Ex ID16List or tcp Shared Option Ex ID32List IEs takes precedence over setting the corresponding bits in the tcpOptionsFull IE for the same Flow. In order to optimize the use of the reduced-size encoding in the presence of tcp Shared Option Ex ID16List or tcp Shared Option Ex ID32List IEs, the Exporter MUST NOT set to 1 the shared TCP options (Kind=253 or 254) of the tcpOptionsFull IE that is reported for the same Flow.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
unsigned256¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
flags¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "TCP Option Kind Numbers" registry at [IANA-TCP].¶
See [RFC9293] for the general definition of TCP options.¶
The tcpOptionsFull IE deprecates the tcpOptions IE (209) that was initially defined in [RFC5102].¶
[RFC7012] obsoletes [RFC5102] and specifies that [IANA-IPFIX] is the normative reference for the tcpOptions IE (209).¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
4.2. tcpSharedOptionExID16 Information Element
- Name:
-
tcp
Shared Option Ex ID16¶ - ElementID:
-
521¶
- Description:
-
Reports an observed 2-byte ExID in a shared TCP option (Kind=253 or 254) in a Flow.¶
A basicList of tcp
Shared Option Ex ID16 is used to report tcp Shared Option Ex ID16List values.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
unsigned16¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
identifier¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "TCP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (TCP ExIDs)" registry at [IANA-TCP-ExIDs].¶
See [RFC9293] for the general definition of TCP options.¶
See [RFC6994] for the shared use of experimental TCP Options.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
4.3. tcpSharedOptionExID32 Information Element
- Name:
-
tcp
Shared Option Ex ID32¶ - ElementID:
-
522¶
- Description:
-
Reports an observed 4-byte ExID in a shared TCP option (Kind=253 or 254) in a Flow.¶
A basicList of tcp
Shared Option Ex ID32 is used to report tcp Shared Option Ex ID32List values.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
unsigned32¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
identifier¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "TCP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (TCP ExIDs)" registry at [IANA-TCP-ExIDs].¶
See [RFC9293] for the general definition of TCP options.¶
See [RFC6994] for the shared use of experimental TCP Options.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
4.4. tcpSharedOptionExID16List Information Element
- Name:
-
tcp
Shared Option Ex ID16List¶ - ElementID:
-
523¶
- Description:
-
Reports observed 2-byte ExIDs in shared TCP options (Kind=253 or 254) in a Flow.¶
A basicList of tcp
Shared Option Ex ID16 IEs in which each tcp Shared Option Ex ID16 IE carries an observed 2-byte ExID in a shared option.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
basicList¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
list¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "TCP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (TCP ExIDs)" registry at [IANA-TCP-ExIDs].¶
See [RFC9293] for the general definition of TCP options.¶
See [RFC6994] for the shared use of experimental TCP Options.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
4.5. tcpSharedOptionExID32List Information Element
- Name:
-
tcp
Shared Option Ex ID32List¶ - ElementID:
-
524¶
- Description:
-
Reports observed 4-byte ExIDs in shared TCP options (Kind=253 or 254) in a Flow.¶
A basicList of tcp
Shared Option Ex ID32 IEs in which each tcp Shared Option Ex ID32 IE carries an observed 4-byte ExID in a shared option.¶ - Abstract Data Type:
-
basicList¶
- Data Type Semantics:
-
list¶
- Additional Information:
-
See the "TCP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (TCP ExIDs)" registry at [IANA-TCP-ExIDs].¶
See [RFC9293] for the general definition of TCP options.¶
See [RFC6994] for the shared use of experimental TCP Options.¶
- Reference:
-
RFC 9740¶
5. Implementation and Operational Considerations
Implementations of tcp
If a TCP Flow contains packets with a mix of 2-byte and 4-byte ExIDs, the same Template Record is used with both tcp
6. Examples
This section provides a few examples to illustrate the use of some IEs defined in this document.¶
6.1. IPv6 Extension Headers
Figure 1 provides an example of EH/bit mappings in an ipv6Extension
The leading zeros are dropped per the reduced-size encoding guidance. One octet is thus sufficient to send these observed options on the wire. Concretely, the ipv6Extension
Figure 3 provides another example of reported values in an ipv6Extension
Let us now consider an IPv6 Flow in which the following EH chain is observed: Routing (5), Mobility (7), and Authentication (9) header. Figure 4
shows the ipv6Extension
6.2. TCP Options
6.2.1. Reduced-Size Encoding
Given TCP Kind allocation practices and the option mapping defined in Section 4.1, fewer octets are likely to be used for Flows with common TCP options.¶
Figure 5 shows an example of Kind/bit mappings in a tcpOptionsFull IE for a TCP Flow in which End of Option List (0), Maximum Segment Size (2), and Window Scale (3) options are observed.¶
One octet is sufficient to report these observed options. Concretely, the tcpOptionsFull IE will be set to 0x0D (Figure 6).¶
7. Security Considerations
IPFIX security considerations are discussed in Section 11 of [RFC7011].¶
ipv6Extension
This document does not add new security considerations for exporting IEs other than those already discussed in Section 8 of [RFC7012].¶
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions Information Elements
IANA has updated the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry under the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" registry group [IANA-IPFIX] as follows:¶
Also, IANA has updated the reference of ipv6Extension
8.2. IPFIX Information Elements
IANA has added the following new IPFIX IEs to the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry under the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" registry group [IANA-IPFIX]:¶
8.3. IPFIX Information Element Data Type
IANA has added the following new abstract data type to the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types" registry under the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" registry group [IANA-IPFIX]:¶
8.3.1. unsigned256
The type "unsigned256" represents a non-negative integer value in the range of '0' to '2256 - 1'. Similar to Section 6.1.1 of [RFC7011], this type MUST be encoded using the default canonical format in network byte order.¶
Reduced-size encoding (Section 6.2 of [RFC7011]) applies to this data type. The reduction in size can be to any number of octets smaller than the unsigned256 type if the data value still fits, i.e., so that only leading zeros are dropped.¶
8.4. IPFIX Registry for IPv6 Extension Headers
IANA has created a new registry entitled "IPFIX ipv6Extension
When a new code is assigned to an IPv6 EH in [IANA-EH], the next available free bit is selected by IANA for this EH from the "IPFIX ipv6Extension
Note: When a new code is assigned to an IPv6 Extension Header, the next available free bit in [IANA
Otherwise, the registration policy for the registry is Expert Review (Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]). See more details in Section 8.4.2.¶
8.4.1. Initial Values
The initial values of this registry are provided in Table 3.¶
8.4.2. Guidelines for the Designated Experts
It is suggested that multiple designated experts be appointed for registry change requests.¶
Designated experts are solicited only for changes that are not covered by the automatic mirroring described above. For example, a registration may request two bits for a new EH to cover specific behaviors or uses of that EH.¶
Criteria that should be applied by the designated experts include determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing entries, whether the exception to the automatic mirroring procedure is justified, and whether the registration description is clear and fits the purpose of this registry.¶
Within the review period, the designated experts will either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful.¶
9. References
9.1. Normative References
- [IANA-EH]
-
IANA, "IPv6 Extension Header Types", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /ipv6 -parameters - [IANA-IPFIX]
-
IANA, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /ipfix - [IANA
-IPFIX -IPv6EH] -
IANA, "IPFIX ipv6Extension
Headers Bits" , <https://www >..iana .org /assignments /ipfix - [IANA-Protocols]
-
IANA, "Protocol Numbers", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /protocol -numbers - [IANA-TCP]
-
IANA, "TCP Option Kind Numbers", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /tcp -parameters - [IANA-TCP-ExIDs]
-
IANA, "TCP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (TCP ExIDs)", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /tcp -parameters - [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC6313]
-
Claise, B., Dhandapani, G., Aitken, P., and S. Yates, "Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 6313, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6313 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6313 - [RFC6994]
-
Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options", RFC 6994, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6994 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6994 - [RFC7011]
-
Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7011 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7011 - [RFC7012]
-
Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7012 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7012 - [RFC8126]
-
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8126 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8126 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8200]
-
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8200 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8200 - [RFC9293]
-
Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9293 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9293
9.2. Informative References
- [EH-LIMITS]
-
Herbert, T., "Limits on Sending and Processing IPv6 Extension Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-6man -eh -limits -19 datatracker >..ietf .org /api /v1 /doc /document /draft -ietf -6man -eh -limits / - [RFC5102]
-
Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5102, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5102 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5102 - [RFC7609]
-
Fox, M., Kassimis, C., and J. Stevens, "IBM's Shared Memory Communications over RDMA (SMC-R) Protocol", RFC 7609, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7609 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7609 - [RFC7872]
-
Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu, "Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7872 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7872 - [RFC7974]
-
Williams, B., Boucadair, M., and D. Wing, "An Experimental TCP Option for Host Identification", RFC 7974, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7974 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7974 - [RFC8547]
-
Bittau, A., Giffin, D., Handley, M., Mazieres, D., and E. Smith, "TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option", RFC 8547, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8547 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8547 - [RFC8883]
-
Herbert, T., "ICMPv6 Errors for Discarding Packets Due to Processing Limits", RFC 8883, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8883 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8883 - [RFC9098]
-
Gont, F., Hilliard, N., Doering, G., Kumari, W., Huston, G., and W. Liu, "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers", RFC 9098, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9098 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9098
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Paul Aitken, Éric Vyncke, and Joe Touch for the reviews and comments. Special thanks to Andrew Feren for sharing data about scans of IPFIX data he collected.¶
Thanks to Wesley Eddy for the tsvart review, Yingzhen Qu for the opsdir review, Dirk Von Hugo for intdir review, Joel Halpern for the genart review, and Tero Kivinen for the secdir review.¶
Thanks to Thomas Graf for the Shepherd review.¶
Thanks to Mahesh Jethanandani for the AD review.¶
Thanks to Éric Vyncke, Erik Kline, Roman Danyliw, and Zaheduzzaman Sarker for the IESG review.¶