rfc9630v3.txt		rfc9630.txt
	skipping to change at line 104 ¶		skipping to change at line 104 ¶
	is lost within a keyframe and cannot be recovered using forward error		is lost within a keyframe and cannot be recovered using forward error
	correction, many receivers will be unable to decode subsequent frames		correction, many receivers will be unable to decode subsequent frames
	within the Group of Pictures (GoP), which results in video freezes or		within the Group of Pictures (GoP), which results in video freezes or
	black pictures until another keyframe is delivered. Unexpectedly		black pictures until another keyframe is delivered. Unexpectedly
	long delays in delivery of packets can cause timeouts with similar		long delays in delivery of packets can cause timeouts with similar
	results. Multicast packet loss and delays can therefore affect		results. Multicast packet loss and delays can therefore affect
	application performance and the user experience within a domain.		application performance and the user experience within a domain.
	It is essential to monitor the performance of multicast traffic. New		It is essential to monitor the performance of multicast traffic. New
	on-path telemetry techniques, such as IOAM [RFC9197], IOAM Direct		on-path telemetry techniques, such as IOAM [RFC9197], IOAM Direct
	Export (DEX) [RFC9326], IOAM Postkcard-Based Telemetry - Marking		Export (DEX) [RFC9326], IOAM Postcard-Based Telemetry - Marking (PBT-
	(PBT-M) [POSTCARD-TELEMETRY], and Hybrid Two-Step (HTS)		M) [POSTCARD-TELEMETRY], and Hybrid Two-Step (HTS) [HYBRID-TWO-STEP],
	[HYBRID-TWO-STEP], complement existing active OAM performance		complement existing active OAM performance monitoring methods like
	monitoring methods like ICMP ping [RFC0792]. However, multicast		ICMP ping [RFC0792]. However, multicast traffic's unique
	traffic's unique characteristics present challenges in applying these		characteristics present challenges in applying these techniques
	techniques efficiently.		efficiently.
	The IP multicast packet data for a particular (S,G) state remains		The IP multicast packet data for a particular (S,G) state remains
	identical across different branches to multiple receivers [RFC4601].		identical across different branches to multiple receivers [RFC7761].
	When IOAM trace data is added to multicast packets, each replicated		When IOAM trace data is added to multicast packets, each replicated
	packet retains telemetry data for its entire forwarding path. This		packet retains telemetry data for its entire forwarding path. This
	results in redundant data collection for common path segments,		results in redundant data collection for common path segments,
	unnecessarily consuming extra network bandwidth. For large multicast		unnecessarily consuming extra network bandwidth. For large multicast
	trees, this redundancy is substantial. Using solutions like IOAM DEX		trees, this redundancy is substantial. Using solutions like IOAM DEX
	could be more efficient by eliminating data redundancy, but IOAM DEX		could be more efficient by eliminating data redundancy, but IOAM DEX
	lacks a branch identifier, complicating telemetry data correlation		lacks a branch identifier, complicating telemetry data correlation
	and multicast tree reconstruction.		and multicast tree reconstruction.
	This document provides two solutions to the IOAM data-redundancy		This document provides two solutions to the IOAM data-redundancy
	skipping to change at line 543 ¶		skipping to change at line 543 ¶
	[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,		[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
	RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,		RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
	[RFC3605] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute		[RFC3605] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
	in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,		in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3605, October 2003,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3605, October 2003,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3605>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3605>.
	[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
	"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
	Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4601>.
	[RFC6450] Venaas, S., "Multicast Ping Protocol", RFC 6450,		[RFC6450] Venaas, S., "Multicast Ping Protocol", RFC 6450,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6450, December 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6450, December 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6450>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6450>.
	[RFC8487] Asaeda, H., Meyer, K., and W. Lee, Ed., "Mtrace Version 2:		[RFC8487] Asaeda, H., Meyer, K., and W. Lee, Ed., "Mtrace Version 2:
	Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", RFC 8487,		Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", RFC 8487,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8487, October 2018,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8487, October 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8487>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8487>.
	[RFC9486] Bhandari, S., Ed. and F. Brockners, Ed., "IPv6 Options for		[RFC9486] Bhandari, S., Ed. and F. Brockners, Ed., "IPv6 Options for
End of changes. 3 change blocks.
	13 lines changed or deleted		7 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.