5. Experimentation Overview

This section preserves the RFC text for the SRH AltMark TLV experiment, including Alternate-Marking Method, SRv6, SRH, FlowMonID, L and D flags, NH, enhanced fields, controlled-domain requirements, security, and IANA considerations.

Original RFC Text

5.  Experimentation Overview

   The protocol extension described in this document is built on
   existing technology using an Experimental code point.  Experiment
   participants must use a code point chosen from the Experimental
   range, as noted in Section 3, and should make it possible for the
   operator to configure the value used in a deployment such that it is
   possible to conduct multiple non-conflicting experiments within the
   same network.

   This experiment aims to determine whether or not the use of the SRH
   AltMark TLV brings advantages, in particular, in consideration of
   implementations that cannot support multiple IPv6 extension headers
   in the same packet, or which do not support Destination Options
   Header processing, or which process the Destination Options Header on
   the slow path.

   This experiment also needs to determine whether the proposed protocol
   extensions achieve the desired function and can be supported in the
   presence of normal SRv6 processing.  In particular, the experiment
   needs to verify the ability to support SR network programming, SID
   function control, and the support or non-support of the AltMark TLV.

   It is anticipated that this experiment will be contained within a
   single service provider network in keeping with the constraints of an
   SR domain, and also in keeping with the limits in sharing performance
   monitoring data collected on the path of packets in the network.  The
   scope of the experimental deployment may depend on the availability
   of implementations and the willingness of operators to deploy it on
   live networks.

   The results of this experiment will be collected and shared with the
   Independent Submissions Editor or with the IETF SPRING Working Group
   as Internet-Drafts to help progress the discussions that will
   determine the correct development of Alternate-Marking Method
   solutions in SRv6 networks.  It is expected that initial results will
   be made available within two years of the publication of this
   document as an RFC.

5.1.  Objective of the Experiment

   Researchers are invited to evaluate the SRH AltMark TLV against the
   existing approach in [RFC9343].  There are several potential areas of
   exploration for this experimentation that need to be analyzed:

   *  Does the use of the SRH AltMark TLV survive across a network
      better or worse than the use of an extension header?

   *  Does the SRH TLV processing represent a performance improvement or
      hindrance on the device as compared to the Destination Option?

   *  Is the forwarding plane performance impacted across different
      device architecture types when comparing the use of the SRH TLV
      with the use of Destination Option?

   *  How does use of the extended data fields, introduced in
      Section 3.2, compare to other on-path telemetry methods from the
      point of view of the operators?