PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces
draft-fenner-intarea-probe-clarification-00
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bill Fenner (ˢˣˠ) , Ron Bonica , Reji Thomas , Jen Linkova , Chris Lenart , Mohamed Boucadair | ||
| Last updated | 2024-02-01 | ||
| Replaces | draft-fenner-int-probe-clarification | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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-fenner-intarea-probe-clarification-00
int-area B. Fenner, Ed.
Internet-Draft Arista Networks
Obsoletes: 8335 (if approved) R. Bonica
Updates: 4884 (if approved) Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track R. Thomas
Expires: 4 August 2024 Arista Networks
J. Linkova
Google
C. Lenart
Verizon
M. Boucadair
Orange
1 February 2024
PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces
draft-fenner-intarea-probe-clarification-00
Abstract
This document describes a network diagnostic tool called PROBE.
PROBE is similar to PING in that it can be used to query the status
of a probed interface, but it differs from PING in that it does not
require bidirectional connectivity between the probing and probed
interfaces. Instead, PROBE requires bidirectional connectivity
between the probing interface and a proxy interface. The proxy
interface can reside on the same node as the probed interface, or it
can reside on a node to which the probed interface is directly
connected. This document updates RFC 4884 and obsoletes RFC 8335.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://fenner.github.io/probe-clarification/draft-fenner-intarea-
probe-clarification.html. Status information for this document may
be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fenner-intarea-
probe-clarification/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Internet Area Area
mailing list (mailto:int-area@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/fenner/probe-clarification.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
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 https://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 4 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. ICMP Extended Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Interface Identification Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. ICMP Extended Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. ICMP Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Code Field Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Updates to RFC 4884 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Changes from RFC 8335 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. The PROBE Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.1. Information Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
Network operators use PING [RFC2151] to test bidirectional
connectivity between two interfaces. For the purposes of this
document, these interfaces are called the probing and probed
interfaces. PING sends an ICMP [RFC0792] [RFC4443] Echo Request
message from the probing interface to the probed interface. The
probing interface resides on a probing node while the probed
interface resides on a probed node.
If the probed interface receives the ICMP Echo Request message, it
returns an ICMP Echo Reply. When the probing interface receives the
ICMP Echo Reply, it has verified bidirectional connectivity between
the probing and probed interfaces. Specifically, it has verified
that:
* The probing node can reach the probed interface.
* The probed interface is active.
* The probed node can reach the probing interface.
* The probing interface is active.
This document describes a network diagnostic tool called PROBE.
PROBE is similar to PING in that it can be used to query the status
of a probed interface, but it differs from PING in that it does not
require bidirectional connectivity between the probing and probed
interfaces. Instead, PROBE requires bidirectional connectivity
between the probing interface and a proxy interface. The proxy
interface can reside on the same node as the probed interface, or it
can reside on a node to which the probed interface is directly
connected. Section 5 of this document describes scenarios in which
this characteristic is useful.
Like PING, PROBE executes on a probing node. It sends an ICMP
Extended Echo Request message from a local interface, called the
probing interface, to a proxy interface. The proxy interface resides
on a proxy node.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
The ICMP Extended Echo Request contains an ICMP Extension Structure
and the ICMP Extension Structure contains an Interface Identification
Object. The Interface Identification Object identifies the probed
interface. The probed interface can reside on or directly connect to
the proxy node.
When the proxy interface receives the ICMP Extended Echo Request, the
proxy node executes access control procedures. If access is granted,
the proxy node determines the status of the probed interface and
returns an ICMP Extended Echo Reply message. The ICMP Extended Echo
Reply indicates the status of the probed interface.
If the probed interface resides on the proxy node, PROBE determines
the status of the probed interface as it would determine its
oper-status [RFC8343]. If oper-status is equal to 'up' (1), PROBE
reports that the probed interface is active. Otherwise, PROBE
reports that the probed interface is inactive.
If the probed interface resides on a node that is directly connected
to the proxy node, and the probed interface appears in the IPv4
Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) table [RFC0826] or IPv6 Neighbor
Cache [RFC4861], PROBE reports interface reachability. Otherwise,
PROBE reports that the table entry does not exist.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses the following terms:
* Probing interface: The interface that sends the ICMP Extended Echo
Request.
* Probing node: The node upon which the probing interface resides.
* Proxy interface: The interface to which the ICMP Extended Echo
Request message is sent.
* Proxy node: The node upon which the proxy interface resides.
* Probed interface: The interface whose status is being queried.
* Probed node: The node upon which the probed interface resides. If
the proxy interface and the probed interface reside upon the same
node, the proxy node is also the probed node. Otherwise, the
proxy node is directly connected to the probed node.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
1.2. Requirements Language
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.
2. ICMP Extended Echo Request
The ICMP Extended Echo Request message is defined for both ICMPv4 and
ICMPv6. Like any ICMP message, the ICMP Extended Echo Request
message is encapsulated in an IP header. The ICMPv4 version of the
Extended Echo Request message is encapsulated in an IPv4 header,
while the ICMPv6 version is encapsulated in an IPv6 header.
Figure 1 depicts the ICMP Extended Echo Request 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| Reserved |L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ICMP Extension Structure
+-+-+-+-+-
| Data...
Figure 1: ICMP Extended Echo Request Message
IP Header fields:
* Source Address: The Source Address identifies the probing
interface. It MUST be a valid IPv4 or IPv6 unicast address.
* Destination Address: The Destination Address identifies the proxy
interface. It MUST be a unicast address.
ICMP fields:
* Type: Extended Echo Request. The value for ICMPv4 is 42. The
value for ICMPv6 is 160.
* Code: MUST be set to 0 and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
* Checksum: For ICMPv4, see RFC 792. For ICMPv6, see RFC 4443.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
* Identifier: An Identifier to aid in matching Extended Echo Replies
to Extended Echo Requests. May be 0.
* Sequence Number: A Sequence Number to aid in matching Extended
Echo Replies to Extended Echo Requests. May be 0.
* Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 and ignored upon receipt.
* L (local): The L-bit is set if the probed interface resides on the
proxy node. The L-bit is clear if the probed interface is
directly connected to the proxy node.
* ICMP Extension Structure: The ICMP Extension Structure contains an
Interface Identification Object that identifies the probed
interface. The checksum in the ICMP Extension structure covers
the Interface Identification Object but not any (optional) data
that follows.
Section 7 of [RFC4884] defines the ICMP Extension Structure. As per
RFC 4884, the Extension Structure contains exactly one Extension
Header followed by one or more objects. When applied to the ICMP
Extended Echo Request message, the ICMP Extension Structure MUST
contain exactly one instance of the Interface Identification Object
(Section 2.1). The ICMP Extension Structure does not cover the rest
of the packet; it ends at the end of the single Interface
Identification Object, and what follows is simply optional data.
If the L-bit is set, the Interface Identification Object can identify
the probed interface by name, index, or address. If the L-bit is
clear, the Interface Identification Object MUST identify the probed
interface by address.
If the Interface Identification Object identifies the probed
interface by address, that address can be a member of any address
family. For example, an ICMPv4 Extended Echo Request message can
carry an Interface Identification Object that identifies the probed
interface by IPv4, IPv6, or IEEE 802 address. Likewise, an ICMPv6
Extended Echo Request message can carry an Interface Identification
Object that identifies the probed interface by IPv4, IPv6, or IEEE
802 address.
The Interface Identification Object MAY be followed by an optional
data section, which is not interpreted but is simply present to be
copied to the ICMP Extended Echo Reply.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
2.1. Interface Identification Object
The Interface Identification Object identifies the probed interface
by name, index, or address. Like any other ICMP Extension Object, it
contains an Object Header and Object Payload. The Object Header
contains the following fields:
* Class-Num: Interface Identification Object. The value is 3.
* C-Type: Values are (1) Identifies Interface by Name, (2)
Identifies Interface by Index, and (3) Identifies Interface by
Address.
* Length: Length of the object, measured in octets, including the
Object Header and Object Payload.
If the Interface Identification Object identifies the probed
interface by name, the Object Payload MUST be the interface name as
defined in [RFC8343]. If the Object Payload would not otherwise
terminate on a 32-bit boundary, it MUST be padded with ASCII NULL
characters, adjusting the Length accordingly.
If the Interface Identification Object identifies the probed
interface by index, the length is equal to 8 and the payload contains
the if-index [RFC8343].
If the Interface Identification Object identifies the probed
interface by address, the payload is as depicted in Figure 2.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI | Address Length| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address ....
Figure 2: Interface Identification Object - C-Type 3 Payload
Payload fields are defined as follows:
* Address Family Identifier (AFI): This 16-bit field identifies the
type of address represented by the Address field. All values
found in the IANA registry of Address Family Numbers (available
from [IANA.address-family-numbers]) are valid in this field.
* Address Length: Number of significant bytes contained by the
Address field. (The Address field contains significant bytes and
padding bytes.)
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
* Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 and ignored upon receipt.
* Address: This variable-length field represents an address
associated with the probed interface. If the address field would
not otherwise terminate on a 32-bit boundary, it MUST be padded
with zeroes.
3. ICMP Extended Echo Reply
The ICMP Extended Echo Reply message is defined for 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 3 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|State|Res|A|4|6|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ICMP Extension Structure
+-+-+-+-+-
| Data...
Figure 3: ICMP Extended Echo Reply Message
IP Header fields:
* Source Address: Copied from the Destination Address field of the
invoking Extended Echo Request message.
* Destination Address: Copied from the Source Address field of the
invoking Extended Echo Request message.
ICMP fields:
* Type: Extended Echo Reply. The value for ICMPv4 is 43. The value
for ICMPv6 is 161.
* Code: Values are (0) No Error, (1) Malformed Query, (2) No Such
Interface, (3) No Such Table Entry, and (4) Multiple Interfaces
Satisfy Query.
* Checksum: For ICMPv4, see RFC 792. For ICMPv6, see RFC 4443.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
* Identifier: Copied from the Identifier field of the invoking
Extended Echo Request packet.
* Sequence Number: Copied from the Sequence Number field of the
invoking Extended Echo Request packet.
* State: If Code is not equal to 0, this field MUST be set to 0 and
ignored upon receipt. Likewise, if the probed interface resides
upon the proxy node, this field MUST be set to 0 and ignored upon
receipt. Otherwise, this field reflects the state of the ARP
table or Neighbor Cache entry associated with the probed
interface. Values are (0) Reserved, (1) Incomplete, (2)
Reachable, (3) Stale, (4) Delay, (5) Probe, and (6) Failed.
* Res: This field MUST be set to 0 and ignored upon receipt.
* A (Active): The A-bit is set if the Code is equal to 0, the probed
interface resides on the proxy node, and the probed interface is
active. Otherwise, the A-bit is clear.
* 4 (IPv4): The 4-bit is set if the A-bit is also set and IPv4 is
running on the probed interface. Otherwise, the 4-bit is clear.
* 6 (IPv6): The 6-bit is set if the A-bit is also set and IPv6 is
running on the probed interface. Otherwise, the 6-bit is clear.
4. ICMP Message Processing
When a node receives an ICMP Extended Echo Request message and any of
the following conditions apply, the node MUST silently discard the
incoming message:
* The node does not recognize ICMP Extended Echo Request messages.
* The node has not explicitly enabled ICMP Extended Echo
functionality.
* The incoming ICMP Extend Echo Request carries a Source Address
that is not explicitly authorized for the L-bit setting of the
incoming ICMP Extended Echo Request.
* The incoming ICMP Extend Echo Request carries a Source Address
that is not explicitly authorized for the incoming ICMP Extended
Echo Request type (i.e., by ifName, by IfIndex, or by Address).
* The Source Address of the incoming message is not a unicast
address.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
* The Destination Address of the incoming message is a multicast
address.
Otherwise, when a node receives an ICMPv4 Extended Echo Request, it
MUST format an ICMP Extended Echo Reply as follows:
* Don't Fragment (DF) flag is 1
* More Fragments flag is 0
* Fragment Offset is 0
* TTL is 255
* Protocol is ICMP
When a node receives an ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request, it MUST format
an ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply as follows:
* Hop Limit is 255
* Next Header is ICMPv6
In either case, the responding node MUST do the following:
* Copy the Source Address from the Extended Echo Request message to
the Destination Address of the Extended Echo Reply.
* Copy the Destination Address from the Extended Echo Request
message to the Source Address of the Extended Echo Reply.
* Set the DiffServ codepoint to CS0 [RFC4594].
* Set the ICMP Type to Extended Echo Reply.
* Copy the Identifier from the Extended Echo Request message to the
Extended Echo Reply.
* Copy the Sequence Number from the Extended Echo Request message to
the Extended Echo Reply.
* Set the Code field as described in Section 4.1.
* Set the State field to 0.
* Clear the A-bit, the 4-bit, and the 6-bit.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
* If (1) the Code Field is equal to (0) No Error, (2) the L-bit is
set, and (3) the probed interface is active, set the A-bit. Also,
set the 4-bit and the 6-bit as appropriate.
* If the Code field is equal to (0) No Error and the L-bit is clear,
then set the State field to reflect the state of the ARP table or
Neighbor Cache entry that represents the probed interface.
* Copy the ICMP Extension Structure, ICMP Extension Object, and Data
(if any) from the Extended Echo Request message.
* Set the Checksum appropriately.
* Forward the ICMP Extended Echo Reply to its destination.
4.1. Code Field Processing
The Code field MUST be set to (1) Malformed Query if any of the
following conditions apply:
* The ICMP Extended Echo Request does not include an ICMP Extension
Structure.
* The ICMP Extension Structure does not include exactly one
Interface Identification Object.
* The ICMP Extension Structure checksum is 0 or incorrect.
* The L-bit is clear and the Interface Identification Object
identifies the probed interface by ifName or ifIndex.
* The query is otherwise malformed.
The Code field MUST be set to (2) No Such Interface if the L-bit is
set and the ICMP Extension Structure does not identify an interface
that resides on the proxy node.
The Code field MUST be set to (3) No Such Table Entry if the L-bit is
clear and the address found in the Interface Identification Object
does not appear in the IPv4 Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) table
or the IPv6 Neighbor Cache.
The Code field MUST be set to (4) Multiple Interfaces Satisfy Query
if any of the following conditions apply:
* The L-bit is set and the ICMP Extension Structure identifies more
than one interface that resides in the proxy node.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
* The L-bit is clear and the address found in the Interface
Identification Object maps to multiple IPv4 ARP or IPv6 Neighbor
Cache entries.
Otherwise, the Code field MUST be set to (0) No Error.
5. Use Cases
In the scenarios listed below, network operators can use PROBE to
determine the status of a probed interface but cannot use PING for
the same purpose. In all scenarios, assume bidirectional
connectivity between the probing and proxy interfaces. However,
bidirectional connectivity between the probing and probed interfaces
is lacking.
* The probed interface is unnumbered.
* The probing and probed interfaces are not directly connected to
one another. The probed interface has an IPv6 link-local address
but does not have a more globally scoped address.
* The probing interface runs IPv4 only while the probed interface
runs IPv6 only.
* The probing interface runs IPv6 only while the probed interface
runs IPv4 only.
* For lack of a route, the probing node cannot reach the probed
interface.
6. Updates to RFC 4884
Section 4.6 of [RFC4884] provides a list of extensible ICMP messages
(i.e., messages that can carry the ICMP Extension Structure). This
document adds the ICMP Extended Echo Request message and the ICMP
Extended Echo Reply message to that list.
7. Changes from RFC 8335
This document updates [RFC8335] to clarify the handling of extra data
beyond the ICMP Extension Structure, that data is echoed in the
response packet, and checksum handling in the ICMP Extension
Structure.
Specifically,
* Updated Figure 1 to reflect the presence of the ICMP Extension
Object and additional data.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
* Updated Section 2 to mention the ICMP Extension Structure
checksum, and extra verbosity about how the Extension Structure
does not cover the rest of the packet.
* Updated Figure 3 to reflect the presence of the ICMP Extension
Structure and additional data.
* Added a step in Section 4 about copying data from the request to
the response.
* Added a step in Section 4.1 about validating the ICMP Extension
Structure checksum.
* Added section Appendix A.1 to suggest human-readable display of
PROBE responses
* Clarified in Section 2.1 that the length of an ifName Object is
adjusted when padding is added.
8. IANA Considerations
IANA has performed the following actions:
* Added the following to the "ICMP Type Numbers" registry:
42 Extended Echo Request
Added the following to the "Type 42 - Extended Echo Request"
subregistry:
(0) No Error
* Added the following to the "ICMPv6 'type' Numbers" registry:
160 Extended Echo Request
As ICMPv6 distinguishes between informational and error
messages, and this is an informational message, the value has
been assigned from the range 128-255.
Added the following to the "Type 160 - Extended Echo Request"
subregistry:
(0) No Error
* Added the following to the "ICMP Type Numbers" registry:
43 Extended Echo Reply
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
Added the following to the "Type 43 - Extended Echo Reply"
subregistry:
(0) No Error
(1) Malformed Query
(2) No Such Interface
(3) No Such Table Entry
(4) Multiple Interfaces Satisfy Query
* Added the following to the "ICMPv6 'type' Numbers" registry:
161 Extended Echo Reply
As ICMPv6 distinguishes between informational and error
messages, and this is an informational message, the value has
been assigned from the range 128-255.
Added the following to the "Type 161 - Extended Echo Reply"
subregistry:
(0) No Error
(1) Malformed Query
(2) No Such Interface
(3) No Such Table Entry
(4) Multiple Interfaces Satisfy Query
* Added the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and
Class Sub-types" registry:
(3) Interface Identification Object
Added the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class 3 -
Interface Identification Object" subregistry:
(0) Reserved
(1) Identifies Interface by Name
(2) Identifies Interface by Index
(3) Identifies Interface by Address
C-Type values are assigned on a First Come First Serve (FCFS)
basis with a range of 0-255.
All codes mentioned above are assigned on an FCFS basis with a range
of 0-255.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
9. Security Considerations
The following are legitimate uses of PROBE:
* to determine the operational status of an interface.
* to determine which protocols (e.g., IPv4 or IPv6) are active on an
interface.
However, malicious parties can use PROBE to obtain additional
information. For example, a malicious party can use PROBE to
discover interface names. Having discovered an interface name, the
malicious party may be able to infer additional information.
Additional information may include:
* interface bandwidth
* the type of device that supports the interface (e.g., vendor
identity)
* the operating system version that the above-mentioned device
executes
Understanding this risk, network operators establish policies that
restrict access to ICMP Extended Echo functionality. In order to
enforce these policies, nodes that support ICMP Extended Echo
functionality MUST support the following configuration options:
* Enable/disable ICMP Extended Echo functionality. By default, ICMP
Extend Echo functionality is disabled.
* Define enabled L-bit settings. By default, the option to set the
L-bit is enabled and the option to clear the L-bit is disabled.
* Define enabled query types (i.e., by name, by index, or by
address); by default, all query types are disabled.
* For each enabled query type, define the prefixes from which ICMP
Extended Echo Request messages are permitted.
* For each interface, determine whether ICMP Echo Request messages
are accepted.
When a node receives an ICMP Extended Echo Request message that it is
not configured to support, it MUST silently discard the message. See
Section 4 for details.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
PROBE must not leak information about one Virtual Private Network
(VPN) into another. Therefore, when a node receives an ICMP Extended
Echo Request and the proxy interface is in a different VPN than the
probed interface, the node MUST return an ICMP Extended Echo Reply
with error code equal to (2) No Such Interface.
In order to protect local resources, implementations SHOULD rate-
limit incoming ICMP Extended Echo Request messages.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc792>.
[RFC0826] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc826>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4443>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4884>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
[RFC8335] Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M.
Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces",
RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8335>.
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8343>.
10.2. Informative References
[IANA.address-family-numbers]
IANA, "Address Family Numbers",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2151>.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4594>.
Appendix A. The PROBE Application
The PROBE application accepts input parameters, sets a counter, and
enters a loop to be exited when the counter is equal to 0. On each
iteration of the loop, PROBE emits an ICMP Extended Echo Request,
decrements the counter, sets a timer, and waits. The ICMP Extended
Echo Request includes an Identifier and a Sequence Number.
If an ICMP Extended Echo Reply carrying the same Identifier and
Sequence Number arrives, PROBE relays information returned by that
message to its user. However, on each iteration of the loop, PROBE
waits for the timer to expire regardless of whether an Extended Echo
Reply message arrives.
PROBE accepts the following parameters:
* Count
* Wait
* Probing Interface Address
* Hop Count
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
* Proxy Interface Address
* Local
* Probed Interface Identifier
Count is a positive integer whose default value is 3. Count
determines the number of times that PROBE 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.
Probing Interface Address specifies the Source Address of the ICMP
Extended Echo Request. The Probing Interface Address MUST be a
unicast address and MUST identify an interface that resides on the
probing node.
The Proxy Interface Address identifies the interface to which the
ICMP Extended Echo Request message is sent. It must be an IPv4 or
IPv6 unicast address. If it is an IPv4 address, PROBE emits an
ICMPv4 message. If it is an IPv6 address, PROBE emits an ICMPv6
message.
Local is a boolean value. It is TRUE if the proxy and probed
interfaces both reside on the same node. Otherwise, it is FALSE.
The Probed Interface Identifier identifies the probed interface. It
is one of the following:
* an interface name;
* an address from any address family (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, IEEE 802,
48-bit MAC, or 64-bit MAC); or
* an if-index.
If the Probed Interface Identifier is an address, it does not need to
be of the same address family as the proxy interface address. For
example, PROBE accepts an IPv4 Proxy Interface Address and an IPv6
Probed Interface Identifier.
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
A.1. Information Display
For the PING application, the primary available piece of information
is the fact that we received an ICMP Echo Reply. Therefore, the
appropriate information to display is all of the available
information about the received reply, e.g., size, ttl, etc. However,
with PROBE, the primary piece of information is the reported status
of the probed interface: the code, status, A, 4, and 6 fields. It's
appropriate to convert the combination of the returned values into a
"human-readable" response.
For example, an application may perform these steps:
* If the code field is non-zero, print the code value as described
in Section 3.
* If the code field is zero, then if the L field sent is zero, print
the state value as described in Section 3.
* Otherwise, the L field sent is 1; print the state represented by
the A, 4, and 6 bits. Sample textual translations for these bits
are shown in Table 1.
+===+===+===+================================================+
| A | 4 | 6 | Text |
+===+===+===+================================================+
| 0 | 0 | 0 | Interface inactive |
+---+---+---+------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | 0 | 0 | Interface active, with no ipv4 or ipv6 running |
+---+---+---+------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | 0 | 1 | Interface active, with ipv6 running |
+---+---+---+------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | 1 | 0 | Interface active, with ipv4 running |
+---+---+---+------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Interface active, with ipv4 and ipv6 running |
+---+---+---+------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Sample translations for bit settings
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Sowmini Varadhan, Jeff Haas, Carlos Pignataro, Jonathan
Looney, Dave Thaler, Mikio Hara, Joel Halpern, Yaron Sheffer, Stefan
Winter, Jean-Michel Combes, Amanda Barber, and Joe Touch for their
thoughtful review of this document.
Authors' Addresses
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PROBE February 2024
Bill Fenner (editor)
Arista Networks
5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, California 95054
United States of America
Email: fenner@fenron.com
Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks
2251 Corporate Park Drive
Herndon, Virginia 20171
United States of America
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Reji Thomas
Arista Networks
Global Tech Park
Bangalore 560103
Karnataka
India
Email: reji.thomas@arista.com
Jen Linkova
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043
United States of America
Email: furry@google.com
Chris Lenart
Verizon
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Ashburn, Virginia 20147
United States of America
Email: chris.lenart@verizon.com
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Fenner, et al. Expires 4 August 2024 [Page 20]