Extended Ping (eping)
draft-bonica-intarea-eping-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ron Bonica , Reji Thomas | ||
| Last updated | 2016-06-23 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-intarea-probe, RFC 8335 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-bonica-intarea-eping-00
INTAREA R. Bonica
Internet-Draft R. Thomas
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: December 25, 2016 June 23, 2016
Extended Ping (eping)
draft-bonica-intarea-eping-00
Abstract
This document describes a new diagnostic tool called Extended Ping
(eping). Network operators execute eping to determine whether a
remote interface is active. In this respect, eping is similar to
ping. Eping differs from ping in that it does not require network
reachability between itself and remote interface whose status is
being queried.
Eping relies on two new ICMP messages, called Extended Echo and
Extended Echo Reply. Both ICMP messages are defined herein.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2016.
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. ICMP Extended Echo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Interface Identification Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. ICMP Extended Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. ICMP Extended Echo and Extended Echo Reply Processing . . . . 7
5. The Eping Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Probing by ifName and ifDescr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. An Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Problem Statement
Network operators use ping [RFC2151] to determine whether a remote
interface is alive. Ping sends an ICMP [RFC0792] [RFC4443] Echo
message to the interface being probed and waits for an ICMP Echo
Reply. If ping receives the expected ICMP Echo Reply, it reports
that interface is alive.
In order for the Echo message to reach the probed interface, the
probed interface must be addressed appropriately. IP addresses are
scoped as follows:
o Global [RFC4291]
o Private [RFC1918] [RFC4193]
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
o Link-local [RFC3927] [RFC4291]
Global addresses are the most widely scoped. A globally addressed
interface can be reached from any node on the Internet. By contrast,
link-local addresses are the least widely scoped. An interface whose
only address is link-local can be reached from on-link interfaces
only.
Network operators seek to decrease their dependence on widely-scoped
interface addressing. For example:
o The operator of an IPv4 network currently assigns global addresses
to all interfaces. In order to conserve scarce IPv4 address
space, this operator seeks to renumber selected interfaces with
private addresses.
o The operator of an IPv4 network currently assigns private
addresses to all interfaces. In order to achieve operational
efficiencies, this operator seeks to leave selected interfaces
unnumbered.
o The operator of an IPv6 network currently assigns global addresses
to all interfaces. In order to achieve operational efficiencies,
this operator seeks to allow selected interfaces to be
automatically configured with link-local addresses.
When a network operator renumbers an interface, replacing a more
widely-scoped address with a less widely-scope address, the operator
also reduces the number of nodes from which ping can probe the
interface. Furthermore, when a network operator removes all
addresses from an interface, leaving it unnumbered, the operator
makes that interface totally inaccessible to ping. Therefore, many
network operators who rely on ping remain dependant upon widely-
scoped interface addressing.
This document describes a new diagnostic tool called Extended Ping
(eping). Network operators use eping to determine whether a remote
interface is active. In this respect, eping is similar to ping.
Eping differs from ping in that it does not require reachability
between the probing node and the probed interface. Or, said another
way, eping does not require reachability between the node upon which
it executes and the interface whose status is being queried.
Eping relies on two new ICMP messages, called Extended Echo and
Extended Echo Reply. The Extended Echo message makes a semantic
distinction between the destination interface and the probed
interface. The destination interface is the interface to which the
Extended Echo message is delivered. It must be reachable from the
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
probing node. The probed interface is the interface whose status is
being queried. It does not need to be reachable from the probing
node. However, the destination and probed interfaces must be local
to one another (i.e., the same node must support both interfaces).
Because the Extended Echo message makes a distinction between the
destination and probed interfaces, eping can probe every interface on
a node if it can reach any node on the node. In many cases, this
allows network operators to decrease their dependence on widely-
scoped interface addressing.
This document is divided into sections, with Section 2 describing the
Extended Echo message and Section 3 describing the Extended Echo
Reply message. Section 4 describes how the probed node processes the
Extended Echo message and Section 5 describes the eping application.
2. ICMP Extended Echo
The ICMP Extended Echo message is applicable to both ICMPv4 and
ICMPv6. Like any ICMP message, the ICMP Extended Echo message is
encapsulated in an IP header. The ICMPv4 version of the Extended
Echo message is encapsulated in an IPv4 header, while the ICMPv6
version is encapsulated in an IPv6 header.
Figure 1 depicts the ICMP Extended Echo message.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ICMP Extensions ........
Figure 1: ICMP Extened Echo Message
IP Source Address: Identifies an interface on the probing node.
IP Destination Address: Identifies the destination interface (i.e.,
the interface to which this message will be delivered).
Type: Extended Echo (TBD. Value to be assigned by IANA.)
Code: 0
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
Checksum: For ICMPv4, see RFC 792. For ICMPv6, see RFC 4443.
Identifier: An identifier to aid in matching Extended Echo Replies to
this Extended Echo Request. May be zero.
Sequence Number: A sequence number to aid in matching Extended Echo
Replies to this Extended Echo Request. May be zero.
If the destination interface is different from the probed interface,
the Extended Echo message MUST include ICMP Extensions. ICMP
Extensions MUST include the ICMP Extension Structure Header [RFC4884]
and the Interface Identification Object (Section 2.1).
If the Extended Echo message does not include the Interface
Identification Object, the destination and probed interfaces are
understood to be the same.
2.1. Interface Identification Object
The Interface Identification Object identifies the probed interface.
It includes an ICMP Object Header (RFC 4884) and at least one sub-
TLV.
The ICMP Object Header contains Class-Num and C-Type fields. The
Class-Num field MUST be set to Interface Identification Class (value
to be assigned by IANA). The C-Type indicates how the probed
interface is identified. The C-Type value MUST be one of the
following:
o By Address (value to be assigned by IANA)
o By ifName (value to be assigned by IANA)
o By ifIndex (value to be assigned by IANA)
See [RFC2863] for a definition of the IfName and IfIndex.
If C-type equals "By Address", the Identification Object payload MUST
be an Interface IP Address Sub-Object. If C-type equals "By ifName",
the Identification Object payload MUST be an Interface IP Name Sub-
Object. Both of these are defined in [RFC5837]. If C-type equals
"By ifIndex, the Identification Object payload MUST be a 32-bit
ifIndex.
If the probed interface is identified by address, its address family
does not need to be the same as that of the destination address. For
example, the probed interface can be identified by its Ethernet
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
address while the destination address is identified by an IPv4
address.
By default, implementations SHOULD NOT support probing by ifName.
See Section 7 for details.
3. ICMP Extended Echo Reply
The ICMP Extended Echo Reply message is applicable to both ICMPv4 and
ICMPv6. Like any ICMP message, the ICMP Extended Echo Reply message
is encapsulated in an IP header. The ICMPv4 version of the Extended
Echo Reply message is encapsulated in an IPv4 header, while the
ICMPv6 version is encapsulated in an IPv6 header.
Figure 2 depicts the ICMP Extended Echo Reply message.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ICMP Extensions ........
Figure 2: ICMP Extened Echo Reply Message
IP source address: Identifies the interface to which the
corresponding ICMP Extended Echo message was sent
IP destination address: Identifies the interface from which the
corresponding ICMP Extended Echo message was sent
Type: Extended Echo Reply (TBD. Value to be assigned by IANA.)
Code: Indicates operational status of probed interface. Defined
values are:
o Inactive (value to be assigned by IANA)
o Active (value to be assigned by IANA)
o Interface_does_not_exist (value to be assigned by IANA)
o Query_not_supported (value to be assigned by IANA)
Checksum: For ICMPv4, see RFC 792. For ICMPv6, see RFC 4443.
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
Identifier: An identifier to aid in matching Extended Echo Replies to
this Extended Echo Request. May be zero.
Sequence Number: A sequence number to aid in matching Extended Echo
Replies to this Extended Echo Request. May be zero.
ICMP Extensions: ICMP Extensions are optional. Currently, no
extensions are specified for the ICMP Extended Echo Reply message.
However, ICMP Extensions may be defined in the future to carry
additional OAM information.
4. ICMP Extended Echo and Extended Echo Reply Processing
When a node receives an ICMPv4 Extended Echo, it MUST format an ICMP
Extended Echo Reply as follows:
o Don't Fragment flag (DF) is 1
o More Fragments flag is 0
o Fragment Offset is 0
o TTL is 255
o Protocol is ICMP
When a node receives an ICMPv6 Extended Echo, it MUST format an
ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply as follows:
o Hop Limit is 255
o Next Header is ICMPv6
o Flow Label is 0
In either case, the responding node MUST:
o Copy the source address from the Extended Echo message to the
destination address of the Extended Echo Reply
o Copy the destination address from the Extended Echo message to the
source address of the Extended Echo Reply
o Set the DiffServ codepoint to CS0 [RFC4594]
o Set the ICMP Type to Extended Echo Reply
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
o Copy the Identifier from the Extended Echo message to the Extended
Echo Reply
o Copy the sequence number from the Extended Echo message to the
Extended Echo Reply
o Set the code appropriately
o Append ICMP Extensions as required
o Set the checksum appropriately
The following rules govern how the Code should be set:
o If the query type is not supported, set the Code to
Query_not_supported
o Otherwise, if the interface does not exist, set the Code to
Interface_does_not_exist
o Otherwise, if the destination interface is in one security domain
and the probed interface is in another security domain, set the
Code to Interface_does_not_exist. Virtual Private Networks are
examples of security domains.
o Otherwise, if the probed inactive, set the Code to Inactive
o Otherwise, set the code to Active
5. The Eping Application
The eping application accepts input parameters, sets a counter and
enters a loop to be exited when the counter is equal to zero. On
each iteration of the loop, eping emits an ICMP Extended Echo,
decrements the counter, sets a timer, waits for the timer to expire.
If an expected ICMP Extended Echo Reply arrives while eping is
waiting for the timer to expire, eping relays information returned by
that message to its user. However, on each iteration of the loop,
eping waits for the timer to expire, regardless of whether an
Extended Echo Reply message arrives.
Eping accepts the following parameters:
o Count
o Wait
o Source Interface Address
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
o Hop Count
o Destination Interface Address
o Probed Interface Identifier
Count is a positive integer whose default value is 3. Count
determines the number of times that eping iterates through the above-
mentioned loop.
Wait is a positive integer whose minimum and default values are 1.
Wait determines the duration of the above mentioned timer, measured
in seconds.
Source Interface Address specifies the source address of ICMP
Extended Echo.
The destination Interface Address identifies the interface to which
the ICMP Extended Echo message is sent. It can be an IPv4 address or
an IPv6 address. If it is an IPv4 address, eping emits an ICMPv4
message. If it is an IPv6 address, eping emits an ICMPv6 message.
The probed interface is the interface whose status is being queried.
If the probed interface identifier is not specified, the destination
and probed interfaces are understood to be identical. If the probed
interface identifier is specified, it can be:
o an interface name
o an interface description
o an address from any address family (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, MAC)
o an ifIndex
The probed interface identifier can have any scope. For example, the
probed interface identifier can be:
o an IPv6 address, whose scope is global
o an IPv6 address, whose scope is link-local
o an interface name, whose scope is node-local
o an interface description, whose scope is node-local
o an ifIndex, whose scope is node-local
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
If the probed interface identifier is an address, it does not need to
be of the same address family as the destination interface address.
For example, eping accepts an IPv4 destination interface address and
an IPv6 probed interface identifier.
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following actions from IANA:
o Add an entry to the "ICMP Type Number" registry, representing the
Extended Echo. This entry has one code (0).
o Add an entry to the "ICMP Type Number" registry, representing the
Extended Echo Reply. This entry has the following codes:
Inactive, Active, Interface_does_not_exist, and
Query_not_supported.
o Add an entry to the "ICMPv6 Type Number" registry, representing
the Extended Echo. This entry has the following codes: Inactive,
Active, Interface_does_not_exist, and Query_not_supported.
o Add an entry to the "ICMPv6 Type Number" registry, representing
the Extended Echo Reply. This entry has one code (0).
o Add an entry to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and sub-
classes" registry, representing the Interface Identification
Class. This Class includes the sub-classes "By Address", "By
Name" , and "By ifIndex".
o
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
7. Security Considerations
7.1. Probing by ifName and ifDescr
Many implementations encode the following information in an ifName:
o Interface type (e.g.., Gigabit Ethernet, SONET, T1)
o Location on chassis (i.e., slot identifier)
o Location on line card (i.e., port identifier)
o Location on port (i.e., logical port identifier)
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
While an operator may have a requirement to probe ports using eping,
that operator may not want to expose the above mentioned information.
Therefore, by default, implementations SHOULD NOT support probing by
ifName. However, probing by ifName can be enabled through
configuration.
8. Acknowledgements
TBD
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC5837] Atlas, A., Ed., Bonica, R., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Shen,
N., and JR. Rivers, "Extending ICMP for Interface and
Next-Hop Identification", RFC 5837, DOI 10.17487/RFC5837,
April 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5837>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) June 2016
[RFC2151] Kessler, G. and S. Shepard, "A Primer On Internet and TCP/
IP Tools and Utilities", FYI 30, RFC 2151,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2151, June 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2151>.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3927, May 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3927>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.
Appendix A. An Appendix
Authors' Addresses
Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks
2251 Corporate Park Drive
Herndon, Virginia 20171
USA
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Reji Thomas
Juniper Networks
Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey
Bangalore, Kanata 560103
India
Email: rejithomas@juniper.net
Bonica & Thomas Expires December 25, 2016 [Page 12]