Skip to main content

CCNinfo: Discovering Content and Network Information in Content-Centric Networks
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo-13

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (icnrg RG)
Authors Hitoshi Asaeda , Atsushi Ooka , Xun Shao
Last updated 2022-10-14 (Latest revision 2022-10-05)
Replaces draft-asaeda-icnrg-ccninfo
RFC stream Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats
IETF conflict review conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo
Stream IRTF state Sent to the RFC Editor
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Document shepherd David R. Oran
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2021-12-10
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to daveoran@orandom.net
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Details
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo-13
ICN Research Group                                             H. Asaeda
Internet-Draft                                                   A. Ooka
Intended status: Experimental                                       NICT
Expires: 8 April 2023                                            X. Shao
                                      Toyohashi University of Technology
                                                          5 October 2022

CCNinfo: Discovering Content and Network Information in Content-Centric
                                Networks
                      draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo-13

Abstract

   This document describes a mechanism named "CCNinfo" that discovers
   information about the network topology and in-network cache in
   Content-Centric Networks (CCN).  CCNinfo investigates: 1) the CCN
   routing path information per name prefix, 2) the Round-Trip Time
   (RTT) between the content forwarder and consumer, and 3) the states
   of in-network cache per name prefix.  CCNinfo is useful to understand
   and debug the behavior of testbed networks and other experimental
   deployments of CCN systems.

   This document is a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking
   Research Group (ICNRG).  This document represents the consensus view
   of ICNRG and has been reviewed extensively by several members of the
   ICN community and the RG.  The authors and RG chairs approve of the
   contents.  The document is sponsored under the IRTF and is not issued
   by the IETF and is not an IETF standard.  This is an experimental
   protocol and the specification may change in the future.

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 8 April 2023.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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.  CCNinfo as an Experimental Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  CCNinfo Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1.  Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.1.1.  Request Header Block and Request Block  . . . . . . .  12
       3.1.2.  Report Block TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       3.1.3.  Content Name Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     3.2.  Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       3.2.1.  Reply Block TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
         3.2.1.1.  Reply Sub-Block TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   4.  CCNinfo User Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.1.  Sending CCNinfo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       4.1.1.  Routing Path Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       4.1.2.  In-Network Cache Information  . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     4.2.  Receiving CCNinfo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   5.  Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     5.1.  User and Neighbor Verification  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     5.2.  Receiving CCNinfo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     5.3.  Forwarding CCNinfo Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       5.3.1.  Regular Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       5.3.2.  Full Discovery Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     5.4.  Sending CCNinfo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     5.5.  Forwarding CCNinfo Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     5.6.  PIT Entry Management for Multipath Support  . . . . . . .  28
   6.  CCNinfo Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     6.1.  Arriving at First-hop Router  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     6.2.  Arriving at Router Having Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     6.3.  Arriving at Last Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     6.4.  Invalid Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.5.  No Route  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

     6.6.  No Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.7.  No Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.8.  Fatal Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.9.  CCNinfo Reply Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     6.10. Non-Supported Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     6.11. Administratively Prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   7.  Configurations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     7.1.  CCNinfo Reply Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     7.2.  HopLimit in Fixed Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     7.3.  Access Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   8.  Diagnosis and Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     8.1.  Number of Hops and RTT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     8.2.  Caching Router Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     8.3.  TTL or Hop Limit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     8.4.  Time Delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     8.5.  Path Stretch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     8.6.  Cache Hit Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     9.1.  Packet Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     9.2.  Top-Level Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     9.3.  Hop-by-Hop Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     9.4.  Message Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     9.5.  Reply Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     10.1.  Policy-Based Information Provisioning for Request  . . .  34
     10.2.  Filtering CCNinfo Users Located in Invalid Networks  . .  34
     10.3.  Topology Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     10.4.  Characteristics of Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     10.5.  Computational Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     10.6.  Longer or Shorter CCNinfo Reply Timeout  . . . . . . . .  35
     10.7.  Limiting Request Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     10.8.  Limiting Reply Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     10.9.  Adjacency Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Appendix A.  ccninfo Command and Options  . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39

1.  Introduction

   In Content-Centric Networks (CCN), publishers provide the content
   through the network, and receivers retrieve it by name.  In this
   network architecture, routers forward content requests through their
   Forwarding Information Bases (FIBs), which are populated by name-
   based routing protocols.  CCN also enables receivers to retrieve
   content from an in-network cache.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   In CCN, while consumers do not generally need to know the content
   forwarder that is transmitting the content to them, the operators and
   developers may want to identify the content forwarder and observe the
   routing path information per name prefix for troubleshooting or
   investigating the network conditions.

   IP traceroute is a useful tool for discovering the routing conditions
   in IP networks because it provides intermediate router addresses
   along the path between the source and destination and the Round-Trip
   Time (RTT) for the path.  However, this IP-based network tool cannot
   trace the name prefix paths used in CCN.  Moreover, such IP-based
   network tools do not obtain the states of the in-network cache to be
   discovered.

   Contrace [7] enables end users (i.e., consumers) to investigate path
   and in-network cache conditions in CCN.  Contrace is implemented as
   an external daemon process running over TCP/IP that can interact with
   a previous CCNx forwarding daemon (CCNx-0.8.2) to retrieve the
   caching information on the forwarding daemon.  This solution is
   flexible, but it requires defining the common APIs used for global
   deployment in TCP/IP networks.  ICN ping [8] and traceroute [9] are
   lightweight operational tools that enable a user to explore the
   path(s) that reach a publisher or a cache storing the named content.
   ICN ping and traceroute, however, do not expose detailed information
   about the forwarders deployed by a network operator.

   This document describes the specifications of "CCNinfo", an active
   networking tool for discovering the path and content caching
   information in CCN.  CCNinfo defines the protocol messages to
   investigate path and in-network cache conditions in CCN.  It is
   embedded in the CCNx forwarding process and can facilitate with non-
   IP networks as with the basic CCN concept.

   The two message types, Request and Reply messages, are encoded in the
   CCNx TLV format [1].  The request-reply message flow, walking up the
   tree from a consumer toward a publisher, is similar to the behavior
   of the IP multicast traceroute facility [10].

   CCNinfo facilitates the tracing of a routing path and provides: 1)
   the RTT between the content forwarder (i.e., caching router or first-
   hop router) and consumer, 2) the states of the in-network cache per
   name prefix, and 3) the routing path information per name prefix.

   In addition, CCNinfo identifies the states of the cache, such as the
   following metrics for Content Store (CS) in the content forwarder: 1)
   size of cached content objects, 2) number of cached content objects,
   3) number of accesses (i.e., received Interests) per content, and 4)
   elapsed cache time and remaining cache lifetime of content.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   CCNinfo supports multipath forwarding.  The Request messages can be
   forwarded to multiple neighbor routers.  When the Request messages
   are forwarded to multiple routers, the different Reply messages are
   forwarded from different routers or publishers.

   Furthermore, CCNinfo implements policy-based information provisioning
   that enables administrators to "hide" secure or private information
   but does not disrupt message forwarding.  This policy-based
   information provisioning reduces the deployment barrier faced by
   operators in installing and running CCNinfo on their routers.

   The document represents the consensus of the Information-Centric
   Networking Research Group (ICNRG).  This document was read and
   reviewed by the active research group members.  It is not an IETF
   product and is not a standard.

1.1.  CCNinfo as an Experimental Tool

   In order to carry out meaningful experimentation with CCNx protocols,
   comprehensive instrumentation and management information is needed to
   take measurements and explore both the performance and robustness
   characteristics of the protocols and of the applications using them.
   CCNinfo's primary goal is to gather and report this information.  As
   experience is gained with both the CCNx protocols and CCNinfo itself,
   we can refine the instrumentation capabilities and discover what
   additional capabilities might be needed in CCNinfo and conversely
   which features wind up not being of sufficient value to justify the
   implementation complexity and execution overhead.

   CCNinfo is intended as a comprehensive experimental tool for CCNx-
   based networks.  It provides a wealth of information from forwarders,
   including on-path in-network cache conditions as well as forwarding
   path instrumentation of multiple paths toward content forwarders.  As
   an experimental capability that exposes detailed information about
   the forwarders deployed by a network operator, CCNinfo employs more
   granular authorization policies than those required of ICN ping or
   ICN traceroute.

   CCNinfo uses two message types: Request and Reply.  A CCNinfo user,
   e.g., consumer, initiates a CCNinfo Request message when s/he wants
   to obtain routing path and cache information.  When an adjacent
   neighbor router receives the Request message, it examines its own
   cache information.  If the router does not cache the specified
   content, it inserts its Report block into the hop-by-hop header of
   the Request message and forwards the message to its upstream neighbor
   router(s) decided by its FIB.  In Figure 1, CCNinfo user and routers
   (Router A, B, C) insert their own Report blocks into the Request
   message and forward the message toward the content forwarder.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

           1. Request    2. Request    3. Request
              (U)           (U+A)         (U+A+B)
             +----+        +----+        +----+
             |    |        |    |        |    |
             |    v        |    v        |    v
    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +---------+
    | CCNinfo|----| Router |----| Router |----| Router |----|Publisher|
    |  user  |    |   A    |    |   B    |    |   C    |    |         |
    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +---------+
                                         \
                                          \          +-------+
                                3. Request \         | Cache |
                                   (U+A+B)  \ +---------+    |
                                             v| Caching |----+
                                              |  router |
                                              +---------+

      Figure 1: Request message invoked by CCNinfo user and forwarded
                                by routers.

   When the Request message reaches the content forwarder, the content
   forwarder forms the Reply message; it inserts its own Reply block TLV
   and Reply sub-block TLV(s) to the Request message.  The Reply message
   is then forwarded back toward the user in a hop-by-hop manner along
   the Pending Interest Table (PIT) entries.  In Figure 2, each router
   (Router C, B, and A) forwards the Reply message along its PIT entry
   and finally, the CCNinfo user receives a Reply message from Router C,
   which is the first-hop router for the Publisher.  Another Reply
   message from the Caching router (i.e., Reply(C)) is discarded at
   Router B if the other Reply message (i.e., Reply(P)) was already
   forwarded by Router B.

           3. Reply(P)   2. Reply(P)   1. Reply(P)
             +----+        +----+        +----+
             |    |        |    |        |    |
             v    |        v    |        v    |
    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +---------+
    | CCNinfo|----| Router |----| Router |----| Router |----|Publisher|
    |  user  |    |   A    |    |   B    |    |   C    |    |         |
    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +---------+
                                         ^
                                          \          +-------+
                               1. Reply(C) \         | Cache |
                                            \ +---------+    |
                                             \| Caching |----+
                                              |  router |
                                              +---------+

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

        Figure 2: Reply messages forwarded by routers, and one Reply
                    message is received by CCNinfo user.

2.  Terminology

   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 [3] and RFC8174 [4]) when, and only when, they appear in
   all capitals, as shown here.

2.1.  Definitions

   This document follows the basic terminologies and definitions
   described in [1].  Although CCNinfo requests flow in the opposite
   direction to the data flow, we refer to "upstream" and "downstream"
   with respect to data, unless explicitly specified.

   Scheme name
      It indicates a URI and protocol.  This document only considers
      "ccnx:/" as the scheme name.

   Prefix name
      A prefix name, which is defined in [2], is a name that does not
      uniquely identify a single content object, but rather a namespace
      or prefix of an existing content object name.

   Exact name
      An exact name, which is defined in [2], is one that uniquely
      identifies the name of a content object.

   Node
      A node within a CCN network can fulfill the role of a data
      publisher, a data consumer, and/or a forwarder for interest and
      content object as given in [6].

   Consumer
      A node that requests content objects by generating and sending out
      interests.  It is a same definition of ICN Consumer as given in
      [6].

   Publisher
      A node that creates content objects and makes them available for
      retrieval.  It is a same definition of ICN Producer as given in
      [6].

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   Router
      A node that implements stateful forwarding in the path between
      consumer and publisher.

   Caching router
      A node that temporarily stores and potentially carries interests
      or content objects before forwarding it to next node.

   Content forwarder
      It is either a caching router or a first-hop router that forwards
      content objects to consumers.

   CCNinfo user
      A node that initiates the CCNinfo Request, which is consumer or
      router that invokes the CCNinfo user program with the name prefix
      of the content.  The CCNinfo user program, such as "ccninfo"
      command described in Appendix A or other similar commands,
      initiates the Request message to obtain routing path and cache
      information.

   Incoming face
      The face on which data are expected to arrive from the specified
      name prefix.

   Outgoing face
      The face to which data from the publisher or router are expected
      to transmit for the specified name prefix.  It is also the face on
      which the Request messages are received.

   Upstream router
      The router that connects to an Incoming face of a router.

   Downstream router
      The router that connects to an Outgoing face of a router.

   First-hop router (FHR)
      The router that matches a FIB entry with an Outgoing face
      referring to a local application or a publisher.

   Last-hop router (LHR)
      The router that is directly connected to a consumer.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

3.  CCNinfo Message Formats

   CCNinfo Request and Reply messages are encoded in the CCNx TLV format
   ([1], Figure 3).  The Request message consists of a fixed header,
   Request block TLV (Figure 7), and Report block TLV(s) (Figure 12).
   The Reply message consists of a fixed header, Request block TLV,
   Report block TLV(s), Reply block TLV (Figure 14), and Reply sub-block
   TLV(s) (Figure 15).

                          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
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |    Version    |  PacketType   |         PacketLength          |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |           PacketType specific fields          | HeaderLength  |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     / Optional Hop-by-hop header TLVs                               /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     / PacketPayload TLVs                                            /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     / Optional CCNx ValidationAlgorithm TLV                         /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     / Optional CCNx ValidationPayload TLV (ValidationAlg required)  /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

                        Figure 3: Packet format [1]

   The PacketType values in the fixed header shown in Figure 3 are
   PT_CCNINFO_REQUEST and PT_CCNINFO_REPLY, respectively (Figure 4).
   CCNinfo Request and Reply messages are forwarded in a hop-by-hop
   manner.  When the Request message reaches the content forwarder, the
   content forwarder turns it into a Reply message by changing the Type
   field value in the fixed header from PT_CCNINFO_REQUEST to
   PT_CCNINFO_REPLY and forwards it back toward the node that initiated
   the Request message.

                      Code         Type name
                    ========      =====================
                      %x00        PT_INTEREST [1]
                      %x01        PT_CONTENT [1]
                      %x02        PT_RETURN [1]
                      %x03        PT_CCNINFO_REQUEST
                      %x04        PT_CCNINFO_REPLY

                      Figure 4: Packet Type Namespace

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   Following a fixed header, there can be a sequence of optional hop-by-
   hop header TLV(s) for a Request message.  In the case of a Request
   message, it is followed by a sequence of Report blocks, each from a
   router on the path toward the publisher or caching router.

   At the beginning of PacketPayload TLVs, a top-level TLV type,
   T_DISCOVERY (Figure 5), exists at the outermost level of a CCNx
   protocol message.  This TLV indicates that the Name segment TLV(s)
   and Reply block TLV(s) would follow in the Request or Reply message.

                   Code           Type name
               =============      =========================
                  %x0000          Reserved [1]
                  %x0001          T_INTEREST [1]
                  %x0002          T_OBJECT [1]
                  %x0003          T_VALIDATION_ALG [1]
                  %x0004          T_VALIDATION_PAYLOAD [1]
                  %x0005          T_DISCOVERY

                     Figure 5: Top-Level Type Namespace

3.1.  Request Message

   When a CCNinfo user initiates a discovery request (e.g., via the
   ccninfo command described in Appendix A), a CCNinfo Request message
   is created and forwarded to its upstream router through the Incoming
   face(s) determined by its FIB.

   The Request message format is shown in Figure 6.  It consists of a
   fixed header, Request header block TLV (Figure 7), Report block
   TLV(s) (Figure 12), Name TLV, and Request block TLV.  Request header
   block TLV and Report block TLV(s) are contained in the hop-by-hop
   header, as those might change from hop to hop.  Request block TLV is
   encoded in the PacketPayload TLV by content forwarder as the protocol
   message itself.  The PacketType value of the Request message is
   PT_CCNINFO_REQUEST (Figure 4).  The Type value of the Top-Level type
   namespace is T_DISCOVERY (Figure 5).

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

                          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
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |    Version    |  PacketType   |         PacketLength          |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |    HopLimit   |   ReturnCode  | Reserved(MBZ) | HeaderLength  |
     +===============+===============+===============+===============+
     /                    Request header block TLV                   /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                      Report block TLV 1                       /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                      Report block TLV 2                       /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                               .                               /
     /                               .                               /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                      Report block TLV n                       /
     +===============+===============+===============+===============+
     |      Type (=T_DISCOVERY)      |         MessageLength         |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |            T_NAME             |             Length            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /   Name segment TLVs (name prefix specified by CCNinfo user)   /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                       Request block TLV                       /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     / Optional CCNx ValidationAlgorithm TLV                         /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     / Optional CCNx ValidationPayload TLV (ValidationAlg required)  /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

       Figure 6: Request message consists of a fixed header, Request
                block TLV, Report block TLV(s), and Name TLV

   HopLimit: 8 bits

      HopLimit is a counter that is decremented with each hop whenever a
      Request packet is forwarded.  It is specified by the CCNinfo user
      program.  The HopLimit value MUST be decremented by 1 prior to
      forwarding the Request packet.  The packet is discarded if
      HopLimit is decremented to zero.  HopLimit limits the distance
      that a Request may travel on the network.  Only the specified
      number of hops from the CCNinfo user traces the Request.  The last
      router stops the trace and sends the Reply message back to the
      CCNinfo user.

   ReturnCode: 8 bits

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

      ReturnCode is used for the Reply message.  This value is replaced
      by the content forwarder when the Request message is returned as
      the Reply message (see Section 3.2).  Until then, this field MUST
      be transmitted as zeros and ignored on receipt.

  Value  Name             Description
  -----  ---------------  ----------------------------------------------
  %x00   NO_ERROR         No error
  %x01   WRONG_IF         CCNinfo Request arrived on an interface
                          to which this router would not forward for
                          the specified name/function toward the
                          publisher.
  %x02   INVALID_REQUEST  Invalid CCNinfo Request is received.
  %x03   NO_ROUTE         This router has no route for the name prefix
                          and no way to determine a route.
  %x04   NO_INFO          This router has no cache information for the
                          specified name prefix.
  %x05   NO_SPACE         There was not enough room to insert another
                          Report block in the packet.
  %x06   INFO_HIDDEN      Information is hidden from this discovery
                          owing to some policy.
  %x0E   ADMIN_PROHIB     CCNinfo Request is administratively
                          prohibited.
  %x0F   UNKNOWN_REQUEST  This router does not support/recognize the
                          Request message.
  %x80   FATAL_ERROR      In a fatal error, the router may know the
                          upstream router but cannot forward the
                          message to it.

   Reserved (MBZ): 8 bits

      The reserved fields in the Value field MUST be transmitted as
      zeros and ignored on receipt.

3.1.1.  Request Header Block and Request Block

   When a CCNinfo user transmits the Request message, s/he MUST insert
   her/his Request header block TLV (Figure 7) into the hop-by-hop
   header and Request block TLV (Figure 10) into the message before
   sending it through the Incoming face(s).

                          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 (=T_DISC_REQHDR)     |             Length            |
     +---------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-+-+-+-+
     |           Request ID          |SkipHop|      Flags    |V|F|O|C|
     +---------------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+-+-+-+-+

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

           Figure 7: Request header block TLV (hop-by-hop header)

                   Code           Type name
               =============      =========================
                  %x0000          Reserved [1]
                  %x0001          T_INTLIFE [1]
                  %x0002          T_CACHETIME [1]
                  %x0003          T_MSGHASH [1]
               %x0004-%x0007      Reserved [1]
                  %x0008          T_DISC_REQHDR
                  %x0009          T_DISC_REPORT
                  %x0FFE          T_PAD [1]
                  %x0FFF          T_ORG [1]
               %x1000-%x1FFF      Reserved [1]

                    Figure 8: Hop-by-Hop Type Namespace

   Type: 16 bits

      Format of the Value field.  For the type value of the Request
      block TLV MUST be T_DISC_REQHDR.

   Length: 16 bits

      Length of Value field in octets.

   Request ID: 16 bits

      This field is used as a unique identifier for the CCNinfo Request
      so that the duplicate or delayed Reply messages can be detected.

   SkipHop (Skip Hop Count): 4 bits

      Number of skipped routers for a Request.  It is specified by the
      CCNinfo user program.  The number of routers corresponding to the
      value specified in this field are skipped and the CCNinfo Request
      messages are forwarded to the next router without the addition of
      Report blocks; the next upstream router then starts the trace.
      The maximum value of this parameter is 15.  This value MUST be
      lower than that of HopLimit at the fixed header.

   Flags: 12 bits

      The Flags field is used to indicate the types of the content or
      path discoveries.  Currently, as shown in Figure 9, four bits,
      "C", "O", "F", and "V" are assigned, and the other 8 bits are
      reserved (MBZ) for the future use.  Each flag can be mutually
      specified with other flags.  These flags are set by the CCNinfo

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

      user program when they initiate Requests (see Appendix A), and the
      routers that receive the Requests deal with the flags and change
      the behaviors (see Section 5 for details).  The Flag values
      defined in this Flags field correspond to the Reply sub-blocks.

   Flag    Value   Description
   -----   -----   -----------------------------------------------------
     C       0     Path discovery (i.e., no cache information retrieved)
                   (default)
     C       1     Path and cache information retrieval
     O       0     Request to any content forwarder (default)
     O       1     Publisher discovery (i.e., only FHR can reply)
     F       0     Request based on FIB's forwarding strategy (default)
     F       1     Full discovery request. Request to possible multiple
                   upstream routers specified in FIB simultaneously
     V       0     No reply validation (default)
     V       1     Reply sender validates Reply message

             Figure 9: Codes and types specified in Flags field

                          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 (=T_DISC_REQ)      |             Length            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                     Request Arrival Time                      |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                        Node Identifier                        /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

               Figure 10: Request block TLV (packet payload)

                       Code          Type name
                  ==============     ===================
                      %x0000         T_NAME [1]
                      %x0001         T_PAYLOAD [1]
                      %x0002         T_KEYIDRESTR [1]
                      %x0003         T_OBJHASHRESTR [1]
                      %x0005         T_PAYLDTYPE [1]
                      %x0006         T_EXPIRY [1]
                      %x0007         T_DISC_REQ
                      %x0008         T_DISC_REPLY
                  %x0009-%x0012      Reserved [1]
                      %x0FFE         T_PAD [1]
                      %x0FFF         T_ORG [1]
                  %x1000-%x1FFF      Reserved [1]

                   Figure 11: CCNx Message Type Namespace

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   Type: 16 bits

      Format of the Value field.  For the Request block TLV, the type
      value(s) MUST be T_DISC_REQ (see Figure 11) in the current
      specification.

   Length: 16 bits

      Length of Value field in octets.

   Request Arrival Time: 32 bits

      The Request Arrival Time is a 32-bit NTP timestamp specifying the
      arrival time of the CCNinfo Request message at the router.  The
      32-bit form of an NTP timestamp consists of the middle 32 bits of
      the full 64-bit form; that is, the low 16 bits of the integer part
      and the high 16 bits of the fractional part.

      The following formula converts from a timespec (fractional part in
      nanoseconds) to a 32-bit NTP timestamp:

         request_arrival_time
         = ((tv.tv_sec + 32384) << 16) + ((tv.tv_nsec << 7) / 1953125)

      The constant 32384 is the number of seconds from Jan 1, 1900 to
      Jan 1, 1970 truncated to 16 bits.  ((tv.tv_nsec << 7) / 1953125)
      is a reduction of ((tv.tv_nsec / 1000000000) << 16), where "<<"
      denotes a logical left shift.

      Note that it is RECOMMENDED for all the routers on the path to
      have synchronized clocks to measure one-way latency per hop;
      however, even if they do not have synchronized clocks, CCNinfo
      measures the RTT between the content forwarder and consumer.

   Node Identifier: variable length

      This field specifies the node identifier (e.g., node name or hash-
      based self-certifying name [11]) or all-zeros if unknown.  This
      document assumes that the Name TLV defined in the CCNx TLV format
      [1] can be used for this field and the node identifier is
      specified in it.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

3.1.2.  Report Block TLV

   A CCNinfo user and each upstream router along the path would insert
   their own Report block TLV without changing the Type field of the
   fixed header of the Request message until one of these routers is
   ready to send a Reply.  In the Report block TLV (Figure 12), the
   Request Arrival Time and Node Identifier MUST be inserted.

                          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 (=T_DISC_REPORT)     |             Length            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                     Request Arrival Time                      |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                        Node Identifier                        /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

              Figure 12: Report block TLV (hop-by-hop header)

   Type: 16 bits

      Format of the Value field.  For the Report block TLV, the type
      value(s) MUST be T_DISC_REPORT in the current specification.  For
      all the available types for hop-by-hop type namespace, please see
      Figure 8.

   Length: 16 bits

      Length of Value field in octets.

   Request Arrival Time: 32 bits

      Same definition as given in Section 3.1.1.

   Node Identifier: variable length

      Same definition as given in Section 3.1.1.

3.1.3.  Content Name Specification

   Specifications of the Name TLV (whose type value is T_NAME) and the
   Name Segment TLVs are described in [1], which are followed by
   CCNinfo.  CCNinfo enables to specification of the content name either
   with a prefix name without chunk number (such as "ccnx:/news/today")
   or an exact name (such as "ccnx:/news/today/Chunk=10").  When a
   CCNinfo user specifies a prefix name, s/he will obtain the summary
   information of the matched content objects in the content forwarder.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   In contrast, when a CCNinfo user specifies an exact name, s/he will
   obtain only about the specified content object in the content
   forwarder.  A CCNinfo Request message MUST NOT be sent only with a
   scheme name, ccnx:/. It will be rejected and discarded by routers.

3.2.  Reply Message

   When a content forwarder receives a CCNinfo Request message from an
   appropriate adjacent neighbor router, it inserts its own Reply block
   TLV and Reply sub-block TLV(s) to the Request message and turns the
   Request into the Reply by changing the Type field of the fixed header
   of the Request message from PT_CCNINFO_REQUEST to PT_CCNINFO_REPLY.
   The Reply message (see Figure 13) is then forwarded back toward the
   CCNinfo user in a hop-by-hop manner.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

                          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
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |    Version    |  PacketType   |         PacketLength          |
     +---------------+---------------+-------------+-+---------------+
     |    HopLimit   |   ReturnCode  | Reserved(MBZ) | HeaderLength  |
     +===============+===============+=============+=+===============+
     /                    Request header block TLV                   /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                               .                               /
     /                               .                               /
     /                      n Report block TLVs                      /
     /                               .                               /
     /                               .                               /
     +===============+===============+===============+===============+
     |      Type (=T_DISCOVERY)      |         MessageLength         |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |            T_NAME             |             Length            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /   Name segment TLVs (name prefix specified by CCNinfo user)   /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                       Request block TLV                       /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                        Reply block TLV                        /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                     Reply sub-block TLV 1                     /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                               .                               /
     /                               .                               /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                     Reply sub-block TLV k                     /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     / Optional CCNx ValidationAlgorithm TLV                         /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     / Optional CCNx ValidationPayload TLV (ValidationAlg required)  /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

        Figure 13: Reply message consists of a fixed header, Request
       block TLV, Report block TLV(s), Name TLV, and Reply block/sub-
                                block TLV(s)

3.2.1.  Reply Block TLV

   The Reply block TLV is an envelope for the Reply sub-block TLV(s)
   (explained from the next section).

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

                          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 (=T_DISC_REPLY)     |             Length            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                     Request Arrival Time                      |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                        Node Identifier                        /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

                Figure 14: Reply block TLV (packet payload)

   Type: 16 bits

      Format of the Value field.  For the Reply block TLV, the type
      value MUST be T_DISC_REPLY shown in Figure 11 in the current
      specification.

   Length: 16 bits

      Length of the Value field in octets.  This length is the total
      length of Reply sub-block(s).

   Request Arrival Time: 32 bits

      Same definition as given in Section 3.1.1.

   Node Identifier: variable length

      Same definition as given in Section 3.1.1.

3.2.1.1.  Reply Sub-Block TLV

   The router on the traced path will add one or multiple Reply sub-
   blocks followed by the Reply block TLV before sending the Reply to
   its neighbor router.  This section describes the Reply sub-block TLV
   for informing various cache states and conditions as shown in
   Figure 15.  (Other Reply sub-block TLVs will be discussed in separate
   document(s).)

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   Note that some routers may not be capable of reporting the following
   values, such as Object Size, Object Count, # Received Interest, First
   Seqnum, Last Seqnum, Elapsed Cache Time, and Remain Cache Lifetime,
   shown in Figure 15, or do not report these values due to their
   policy.  In that case, the routers set these fields to a value of all
   ones (i.e., %xFFFFFFFF).  The value of each field will be also all-
   one when the value is equal to or bigger than the maximum size
   expressed by the 32-bit field.  The CCNinfo user program MUST inform
   that these values are not valid if the fields received are set to the
   value of all ones.

   If the cache is refreshed after reboot, the value in each field MUST
   be refreshed (i.e., MUST be set to 0).  If the cache remains after
   reboot, the value MUST NOT be refreshed (i.e., MUST be reflected as
   it is).

                          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              |             Length            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                          Object Size                          |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                         Object Count                          |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                      # Received Interest                      |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                         First Seqnum                          |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                          Last Seqnum                          |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                       Elapsed Cache Time                      |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |                      Remain Cache Lifetime                    |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     |            T_NAME             |             Length            |
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
     /                       Name Segment TLVs                       /
     +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

           Figure 15: Reply sub-block TLV for T_DISC_CONTENT and
                 T_DISC_CONTENT_PUBLISHER (packet payload)

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

                   Code          Type name
               =============     ===========================
                  %x0000         T_DISC_CONTENT
                  %x0001         T_DISC_CONTENT_PUBLISHER
                  %x0FFF         T_ORG
               %x1000-%x1FFF     Reserved (Experimental Use)

                  Figure 16: CCNinfo Reply Type Namespace

   Type: 16 bits

      Format of the Value field.  For the Reply sub-block TLV, the type
      value MUST be either T_DISC_CONTENT or T_DISC_CONTENT_PUBLISHER
      defined in the CCNinfo Reply Type Namespace (Figure 16).
      T_DISC_CONTENT is specified when the cache information is replied
      from a caching router.  T_DISC_CONTENT_PUBLISHER is specified when
      the content information is replied from a FHR attached to a
      publisher.

   Length: 16 bits

      Length of the Value field in octets.

   Object Size: 32 bits

      The total size (KB) of the unexpired content objects.  Values less
      than 1 KB are truncated.  Note that the maximum size expressed by
      the 32-bit field is approximately 4.29 TB.

   Object Count: 32 bits

      The number of the unexpired content objects.  Note that the
      maximum count expressed by the 32-bit field is approximately 4.29
      billion.

   # Received Interest: 32 bits

      The total number of the received Interest messages to retrieve the
      cached content objects.

   First Seqnum: 32 bits

      The first sequential number of the unexpired content objects.

   Last Seqnum: 32 bits

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

      The last sequential number of the unexpired content objects.  The
      First Seqnum and Last Seqnum do not guarantee the consecutiveness
      of the cached content objects; however, knowing these values may
      help in the analysis of consecutive or discontinuous chunks such
      as [12].

   Elapsed Cache Time: 32 bits

      The elapsed time (seconds) after the oldest content object of the
      content is cached.

   Remain Cache Lifetime: 32 bits

      The lifetime (seconds) of a content object, which is lastly
      cached.

4.  CCNinfo User Behavior

4.1.  Sending CCNinfo Request

   A CCNinfo user invokes a CCNinfo user program (e.g., ccninfo command)
   that initiates a CCNinfo Request message and sends it to the user's
   adjacent neighbor router(s) of interest.  The user later obtains both
   the routing path information and in-network cache information in the
   single Reply.

   When the CCNinfo user program initiates a Request message, it MUST
   insert the necessary values, i.e., the "Request ID" and the "Node
   Identifier", in the Request block.  The Request ID MUST be unique for
   the CCNinfo user until s/he receives the corresponding Reply
   message(s) or the Request is timed out.

   Owing to some policies, a router may want to validate the CCNinfo
   Requests using the CCNx ValidationPayload TLV (whether it accepts the
   Request or not) especially when the router receives the "full
   discovery request" (see Section 5.3.2).  Accordingly, the CCNinfo
   user program MAY require validating the Request message and appending
   the user's signature into the CCNx ValidationPayload TLV.  The router
   then forwards the Request message.  If the router does not approve
   the Request, it rejects the Request message as described in
   Section 6.11.

   After the CCNinfo user program sends the Request message, until the
   Reply is timed out or the expected numbers of Replies or a Reply
   message with a non-zero ReturnCode in the fixed header is received,
   the CCNinfo user program MUST keep the following information:
   HopLimit, specified in the fixed header, Request ID, Flags, Node
   Identifier, and Request Arrival Time, specified in the Request block.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

4.1.1.  Routing Path Information

   A CCNinfo user can send a CCNinfo Request for investigating the
   routing path information for the specified named content.  Using the
   Request, a legitimate user can obtain 1) the node identifiers of the
   intermediate routers, 2) node identifier of the content forwarder, 3)
   number of hops between the content forwarder and consumer, and 4) RTT
   between the content forwarder and consumer, per name prefix.  This
   CCNinfo Request is terminated when it reaches the content forwarder.

4.1.2.  In-Network Cache Information

   A CCNinfo user can send a CCNinfo Request for investigating in-
   network cache information.  Using the Request, a legitimate user can
   obtain 1) the size of cached content objects, 2) number of cached
   content objects, 3) number of accesses (i.e., received Interests) per
   content, and 4) lifetime and expiration time of the cached content
   objects, for Content Store (CS) in the content forwarder, unless the
   content forwarder is capable of reporting them (see Section 3.2.1.1).
   This CCNinfo Request is terminated when it reaches the content
   forwarder.

4.2.  Receiving CCNinfo Reply

   A CCNinfo user program will receive one or multiple CCNinfo Reply
   messages from the adjacent neighbor router(s).  When the program
   receives the Reply, it MUST compare the kept Request ID and Node
   Identifier to identify the Request and Reply pair.  If they do not
   match, the Reply message MUST be silently discarded.

   If the number of Report blocks in the received Reply is more than the
   initial HopLimit value (which was inserted in the original Request),
   the Reply MUST be silently ignored.

   After the CCNinfo user has determined that s/he has traced the whole
   path or the maximum path that s/he can be expected to, s/he might
   collect statistics by waiting for a timeout.  Useful statistics
   provided by CCNinfo are stated in Section 8.

5.  Router Behavior

5.1.  User and Neighbor Verification

   Upon receiving a CCNinfo Request message, a router MAY examine
   whether a valid CCNinfo user has sent the message.  If the router
   recognizes that the Request sender's signature specified in the
   Request is invalid, it SHOULD terminate the Request, as defined in
   Section 6.4.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   Upon receiving a CCNinfo Request/Reply message, a router MAY examine
   whether the message comes from a valid adjacent neighbor node.  If
   the router recognizes that the Request/Reply sender is invalid, it
   SHOULD silently ignore the Request/Reply message, as specified in
   Section 10.9.

5.2.  Receiving CCNinfo Request

   After a router accepts the CCNinfo Request message, it performs the
   following steps.

   1.  The value of "HopLimit" in the fixed header and that of "SkipHop
       (Skip Hop Count)" in the Request block are counters that are
       decremented with each hop.  If the HopLimit value is zero, the
       router terminates the Request, as defined in Section 6.5.  If the
       SkipHop value is equal to or more than the HopLimit value, the
       router terminates the Request, as defined in Section 6.4.
       Otherwise, until the SkipHop value becomes zero, the router
       forwards the Request message to the upstream router(s) without
       adding its own Report block and without replying to the Request.
       If the router does not know the upstream router(s) regarding the
       specified name prefix, it terminates the Request, as defined in
       Section 6.5.  It should be noted that the Request messages are
       terminated at the FHR; therefore, although the maximum value for
       the HopLimit is 255 and that for SkipHop is 15, if the Request
       messages reach the FHR before the HopLimit or SkipHop value
       becomes 0, the FHR silently discards the Request message and the
       Request is timed out.

   2.  The router examines the Flags field (specified in Figure 9) in
       the Request block of the received CCNinfo Request.  If the "C"
       flag is not set, it is categorized as the "routing path
       information discovery".  If the "C" flag is set, it is the "cache
       information discovery".  If the "O" flag is set, it is the
       "publisher discovery".

   3.  If the Request is either "cache information discovery" or
       "routing path information discovery", the router examines its FIB
       and CS.  If the router caches the specified content, it sends the
       Reply message with its own Reply block and sub-block(s).  If the
       router cannot insert its own Reply block or sub-block(s) because
       of no space, it terminates the Request, as specified in
       Section 6.7.  If the router does not cache the specified content
       but knows the upstream neighbor router(s) for the specified name
       prefix, it creates the PIT entry, and inserts its own Report
       block in the hop-by-hop header and forwards the Request to the
       upstream neighbor(s).  If the router cannot insert its own Report
       block because of no space, or if the router does not cache the

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

       specified content and does not know the upstream neighbor
       router(s) for the specified name prefix, it terminates the
       Request, as defined in Section 6.5.

   4.  If the Request is the "publisher discovery", the router examines
       whether it is the FHR for the requested content.  If the router
       is the FHR, it sends the Reply message with its own Report block
       and sub-blocks (in the case of cache information discovery) or
       the Reply message with its own Report block without adding any
       Reply sub-blocks (in the case of routing path information
       discovery).  If the router is not the FHR but knows the upstream
       neighbor router(s) for the specified name prefix, it creates the
       PIT entry, and inserts its own Report block and forwards the
       Request to the upstream neighbor(s).  If the router cannot insert
       its own Report block in the hop-by-hop header because of no
       space, it terminates the Request, as specified in Section 6.7.
       If the router is not the FHR and does not know the upstream
       neighbor router(s) for the specified name prefix, it terminates
       the Request, as defined in Section 6.5.  Note that in Cefore
       [14], there is an API by which a publisher informs the
       application prefix to the FHR and the FHR registers it into the
       FIB.  The prefix entry then can be statically configured on other
       routers or announced by a routing protocol.

5.3.  Forwarding CCNinfo Request

5.3.1.  Regular Request

   When a router decides to forward a Request message with its Report
   block to its upstream router(s), it specifies the Request Arrival
   Time and Node Identifier in the Report block of the Request message.
   The router then forwards the Request message upstream toward the
   publisher or caching router based on the FIB entry like the ordinary
   Interest-Data exchanges in CCN.

   When the router forwards the Request message, it MUST record the F
   flag and Request ID in the Request block of the Request message and
   exploiting path labels (specified in Section 1) at the corresponding
   PIT entry.  The router can later check the PIT entry to correctly
   forward the Reply message(s) back.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   CCNinfo supports multipath forwarding.  The Request messages can be
   forwarded to multiple neighbor routers.  Some routers may have a
   strategy for multipath forwarding; when a router sends Interest
   messages to multiple neighbor routers, it may delay or prioritize to
   send the message to the upstream routers.  The CCNinfo Request, as
   the default, complies with such strategies; a CCNinfo user could
   trace the actual forwarding path based on the forwarding strategy and
   will receive a single Reply message such as a content object.

5.3.2.  Full Discovery Request

   There may be a case wherein a CCNinfo user wants to discover all
   possible forwarding paths and content forwarders based on the
   routers' FIBs.  The "full discovery request" enables this
   functionality.  If a CCNinfo user sets the F flag in the Request
   block of the Request message (as seen in Figure 9) to request the
   full discovery, the upstream routers simultaneously forward the
   Requests to all multiple upstream routers based on the FIBs.  Then,
   the CCNinfo user can trace all possible forwarding paths.  As seen in
   Figure 17, each router forwards the Reply message along its PIT entry
   and finally, the CCNinfo user receives two Reply messages: one from
   the FHR (Router C) and the other from the Caching router.

           3. Reply(C)   2. Reply(C)
           3. Reply(P)   2. Reply(P)   1. Reply(P)
             +----+        +----+        +----+
             |    |        |    |        |    |
             v    |        v    |        v    |
    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +---------+
    | CCNinfo|----| Router |----| Router |----| Router |----|Publisher|
    |  user  |    |   A    |    |   B    |    |   C    |    |         |
    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +---------+
                                         ^
                                          \          +-------+
                               1. Reply(C) \         | Cache |
                                            \ +---------+    |
                                             \| Caching |----+
                                              |  router |
                                              +---------+

      Figure 17: Full discovery request.  Reply messages forwarded by
                           publisher and routers.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   To receive different Reply messages forwarded from different routers,
   the PIT entries initiated by CCNinfo remain until the configured
   CCNinfo Reply Timeout (Section 7.1) is expired.  In other words,
   unlike the ordinary Interest-Data exchanges in CCN, if routers that
   accept the full discovery request receive the full discovery request,
   the routers SHOULD NOT remove the PIT entry created by the full
   discovery request until the CCNinfo Reply Timeout value expires.

   Note that the full discovery request is an OPTIONAL implementation of
   CCNinfo; it may not be implemented on routers.  Even if it is
   implemented on a router, it may not accept the full discovery request
   from non-validated CCNinfo users or routers or because of its policy.
   If a router does not accept the full discovery request, it rejects
   the full discovery request as described in Section 6.11.  Routers
   that enable the full discovery request MAY rate-limit Replies, as
   described in Section 10.8 as well.

5.4.  Sending CCNinfo Reply

   If there is a caching router or FHR for the specified content within
   the specified hop count along the path, the caching router or FHR
   sends back the Reply message toward the CCNinfo user and terminates
   the Request.

   When a router decides to send a Reply message to its downstream
   neighbor router or the CCNinfo user with NO_ERROR return code, it
   inserts a Report block with the Request Arrival Time and Node
   Identifier to the Request message.  Then, the router inserts the
   corresponding Reply sub-block(s) (Figure 15) to the payload.  The
   router finally changes the Type field in the fixed header from
   PT_CCNINFO_REQUEST to PT_CCNINFO_REPLY and forwards the message back
   as the Reply toward the CCNinfo user in a hop-by-hop manner.

   If a router cannot continue the Request, the router MUST put an
   appropriate ReturnCode in the Request message, change the Type field
   value in the fixed header from PT_CCNINFO_REQUEST to
   PT_CCNINFO_REPLY, and forward the Reply message back toward the
   CCNinfo user to terminate the Request (see Section 6).

5.5.  Forwarding CCNinfo Reply

   When a router receives a CCNinfo Reply whose Request ID and Node
   Identifier match those in the PIT entry, sent from a valid adjacent
   neighbor router, it forwards the CCNinfo Reply back toward the
   CCNinfo user.  If the router does not receive the corresponding Reply
   within the [CCNinfo Reply Timeout] period, then it removes the
   corresponding PIT entry and terminates the trace.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   The Flags field in the Request block TLV is used to indicate whether
   the router keeps the PIT entry during the CCNinfo Reply Timeout even
   after one or more corresponding Reply messages are forwarded.  When
   the CCNinfo user does not set the F flag (i.e., "0"), the
   intermediate routers immediately remove the PIT entry whenever they
   forward the corresponding Reply message.  When the CCNinfo user sets
   the F flag (i.e., "1"), which means the CCNinfo user chooses the
   "full discovery request" (see Section 5.3.2), the intermediate
   routers keep the PIT entry within the [CCNinfo Reply Timeout] period.
   After this timeout, the PIT entry is removed.

   CCNinfo Replies MUST NOT be cached in routers upon the transmission
   of Reply messages.

5.6.  PIT Entry Management for Multipath Support

   Within a network with multipath condition, there is a case
   (Figure 18) wherein a single CCNinfo Request is split into multiple
   Requests (e.g., at Router A), which are injected into a single router
   (Router D).  In this case, multiple Replies with the same Request ID
   and Node Identifier including different Report blocks are received by
   the router (Router D).

                               +--------+
                               | Router |
                               |   B    |
                               +--------+
                              /          \
                             /            \
     +--------+    +--------+              +--------+     +---------+
     | CCNinfo|----| Router |              | Router | ... |Publisher|
     |  user  |    |   A    |              |   D    |     |         |
     +--------+    +--------+              +--------+     +---------+
                             \            /
                              \          /
                               +--------+
                               | Router |
                               |   C    |
                               +--------+

                                 Figure 18

   To recognize different CCNinfo Reply messages, the routers MUST
   distinguish the PIT entries by the Request ID and exploiting path
   labels, which could be a hash value of the concatenation information
   of the cumulate Node Identifiers in the hop-by-hop header and the
   specified content name.  For example, when Router D in Figure 18
   receives a CCNinfo Request from Router B, its PIT includes the

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   Request ID and value such as H((Router_A|Router_B)|content_name),
   where "H" indicates some hash function and "|" indicates
   concatenation.  When Router D receives a CCNinfo Request from Router
   C, its PIT includes the same Request ID and value of
   H((Router_A|Router_C)|content_name).  Two different Replies are later
   received on Router D and each Reply is appropriately forwarded to
   Router B and Router C, respectively.  Note that two Reply messages
   coming from Router B and Router C are reached at Router A, but the
   CCNinfo user can only receive the first Reply message either from
   Router B or Router C as Router A removes the corresponding PIT entry
   after it forwards the first Reply.

   To avoid routing loops, when a router seeks the cumulate Node
   Identifiers of the Report blocks in the hop-by-hop header, it MUST
   examine whether its own Node Identifier is not previously inserted.
   If a router detects its own Node Identifier in the hop-by-hop header,
   the router inserts its Report block and terminates the Request as
   will be described in Section 6.8.

6.  CCNinfo Termination

   When performing a hop-by-hop trace, it is necessary to determine when
   to stop the trace.  There are several cases when an intermediate
   router might return a Reply before a Request reaches the caching
   router or the FHR.

6.1.  Arriving at First-hop Router

   A CCNinfo Request can be determined to have arrived at the FHR.  To
   ensure that a router recognizes that it is the FHR for the specified
   content, it needs to have a FIB entry (or attach) to the
   corresponding publisher or the content.

6.2.  Arriving at Router Having Cache

   A CCNinfo Request can be determined to have arrived at the router
   having the specified content cache within the specified HopLimit.

6.3.  Arriving at Last Router

   A CCNinfo Request can be determined to have arrived at the last
   router of the specified HopLimit.  If the last router does not have
   the corresponding cache, it MUST insert its Report block and send the
   Reply message with NO_INFO return code without appending any Reply
   (sub-)block TLVs.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

6.4.  Invalid Request

   If the router does not validate the Request or the Reply even it is
   required, the router MUST note a ReturnCode of INVALID_REQUEST in the
   fixed header of the message, insert its Report block, and forward the
   message as the Reply back to the CCNinfo user.  The router MAY,
   however, randomly ignore the received invalid messages.  (See
   Section 10.7.)

6.5.  No Route

   If the router cannot determine the routing paths or neighbor routers
   for the specified name prefix within the specified HopLimit, it MUST
   note a ReturnCode of NO_ROUTE in the fixed header of the message,
   insert its Report block, and forward the message as the Reply back to
   the CCNinfo user.

6.6.  No Information

   If the router does not have any information about the specified name
   prefix within the specified HopLimit, it MUST note a ReturnCode of
   NO_INFO in the fixed header of the message, insert its Report block,
   and forward the message as the Reply back to the CCNinfo user.

6.7.  No Space

   If appending the Report block or the Reply (sub-)block would make the
   hop-by-hop header longer than 247 bytes or the Request packet longer
   than the MTU of the Incoming face, the router MUST note a ReturnCode
   of NO_SPACE in the fixed header of the message and forward the
   message as the Reply back to the CCNinfo user.

6.8.  Fatal Error

   If a CCNinfo Request has encountered a fatal error, the router MUST
   note a ReturnCode of FATAL_ERROR in the fixed header of the message
   and forward the message as the Reply back to the CCNinfo user.  This
   may happen, for example, when the router detects some routing loop in
   the Request blocks (see Section 1).  The fatal error can be encoded
   with another error: if a router detects routing loop but cannot
   insert its Report block, it MUST note NO_SPACE and FATAL_ERROR
   ReturnCodes (i.e., %x85) in the fixed header and forward the message
   back to the CCNinfo user.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

6.9.  CCNinfo Reply Timeout

   If a router receives the Request or Reply message that expires its
   own [CCNinfo Reply Timeout] value (Section 7.1), the router will
   silently discard the Request or Reply message.

6.10.  Non-Supported Node

   Cases will arise in which a router or a FHR along the path does not
   support CCNinfo.  In such cases, a CCNinfo user and routers that
   forward the CCNinfo Request will time out the CCNinfo request.

6.11.  Administratively Prohibited

   If CCNinfo is administratively prohibited, the router rejects the
   Request message and MUST send the CCNinfo Reply with the ReturnCode
   of ADMIN_PROHIB.  The router MAY, however, randomly ignore the
   Request messages to be rejected (see Section 10.7).

7.  Configurations

7.1.  CCNinfo Reply Timeout

   The [CCNinfo Reply Timeout] value is used to time out a CCNinfo
   Reply.  The value for a router can be statically configured by the
   router's administrators/operators.  The default value is 3 (seconds).
   The [CCNinfo Reply Timeout] value SHOULD NOT be larger than 4
   (seconds) and SHOULD NOT be lower than 2 (seconds).

7.2.  HopLimit in Fixed Header

   If a CCNinfo user does not specify the HopLimit value in the fixed
   header for a Request message as the HopLimit, the HopLimit is set to
   32.  Note that 0 HopLimit is an invalid Request; hence, the router in
   this case follows the way defined in Section 6.4.

7.3.  Access Control

   A router MAY configure the valid or invalid networks to enable an
   access control.  The access control MAY be defined per name prefix,
   such as "who can retrieve which name prefix" (see Section 10.2).

8.  Diagnosis and Analysis

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

8.1.  Number of Hops and RTT

   A CCNinfo Request message is forwarded in a hop-by-hop manner and
   each forwarding router appends its own Report block.  We can then
   verify the number of hops to reach the content forwarder or publisher
   and the RTT between the content forwarder or publisher.

8.2.  Caching Router Identification

   While some routers may hide their node identifiers with all-zeros in
   the Report blocks (as seen in Section 10.1), the routers in the path
   from the CCNinfo user to the content forwarder can be identified.

8.3.  TTL or Hop Limit

   By taking the HopLimit from the content forwarder and forwarding the
   TTL threshold over all hops, it is possible to discover the TTL or
   hop limit required for the content forwarder to reach the CCNinfo
   user.

8.4.  Time Delay

   If the routers have synchronized clocks, it is possible to estimate
   the propagation and queuing delays from the differences between the
   timestamps at the successive hops.  However, this delay includes the
   control processing overhead; therefore, it is not necessarily
   indicative of the delay that would be experienced by the data
   traffic.

8.5.  Path Stretch

   By obtaining the path stretch "d / P", where "d" is the hop count of
   the data and "P" is the hop count from the consumer to the publisher,
   we can measure the improvements in path stretch in various cases,
   such as in different caching and routing algorithms.  We can then
   facilitate the investigation of the performance of the protocol.

8.6.  Cache Hit Probability

   CCNinfo can show the number of received interests per cache or chunk
   on a router.  Accordingly, CCNinfo measures the content popularity
   (i.e., the number of accesses for each content/cache), thereby
   enabling the investigation of the routing/caching strategy in
   networks.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

9.  IANA Considerations

   This section details each kind of CCNx protocol value that can be
   registered.  As per [5], this section makes assignments in four
   existing registries and creates a new Reply Type registry in the
   "Content-Centric Networking (CCNx)" registry group.  The registration
   procedure is "RFC Required", which requires only that this document
   be published as an RFC.

9.1.  Packet Type Registry

   As shown in Figure 4, CCNinfo defines two packet types,
   PT_CCNINFO_REQUEST and PT_CCNINFO_REPLY, whose suggested values are
   %x03 and %x04, respectively.

9.2.  Top-Level Type Registry

   As shown in Figure 5, CCNinfo defines one top-level type,
   T_DISCOVERY, whose suggested value is %x0005.

9.3.  Hop-by-Hop Type Registry

   As shown in Figure 8, CCNinfo defines two hop-by-hop types,
   T_DISC_REQHDR and T_DISC_REPORT, whose suggested values are %x0008
   and %x0009, respectively.

9.4.  Message Type Registry

   As shown in Figure 11, CCNinfo defines two message types, T_DISC_REQ
   and T_DISC_REPLY, whose suggested values are %x0007 and %x0008,
   respectively.

9.5.  Reply Type Registry

   IANA has created the "CCNx Reply Types" registry and allocated the
   reply types.  The Type value is 2 octets.  The range is
   %x0000-%xFFFF.  As shown in Figure 16, CCNinfo defines three reply
   types, T_DISC_CONTENT, T_DISC_CONTENT_PUBLISHER, and T_ORG, whose
   suggested values are %x0000, %x0001, and %x0FFF, respectively.

10.  Security Considerations

   This section addresses some of the security considerations.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

10.1.  Policy-Based Information Provisioning for Request

   Although CCNinfo gives excellent troubleshooting cues, some network
   administrators or operators may not want to disclose everything about
   their network to the public or may wish to securely transmit private
   information to specific members of their networks.  CCNinfo provides
   policy-based information provisioning, thereby allowing network
   administrators to specify their response policy for each router.

   The access policy regarding "who is allowed to retrieve" and/or "what
   kind of cache information" can be defined for each router.  For the
   former type of access policy, routers with the specified content MAY
   examine the signature enclosed in the Request message and decide
   whether they should notify the content information in the Reply.  If
   the routers decide to not notify the content information, they MUST
   send the CCNinfo Reply with the ReturnCode of ADMIN_PROHIB without
   appending any Reply (sub-)block TLVs.  For the latter type of policy,
   the permission, whether (1) All (all cache information is disclosed),
   (2) Partial (cache information with a particular name prefix can (or
   cannot) be disclosed), or (3) Deny (no cache information is
   disclosed), is defined at the routers.

   In contrast, we entail that each router does not disrupt the
   forwarding of CCNinfo Request and Reply messages.  When a Request
   message is received, the router SHOULD insert the Report block if the
   ReturnCode is NO_ERROR.  Here, according to the policy configuration,
   the Node Identifier field in the Report block MAY be null (i.e., all-
   zeros), but the Request Arrival Time field SHOULD NOT be null.
   Finally, the router SHOULD forward the Request message to the
   upstream router toward the content forwarder if the ReturnCode is
   kept with NO_ERROR.

10.2.  Filtering CCNinfo Users Located in Invalid Networks

   A router MAY support an access control mechanism to filter out
   Requests from invalid CCNinfo users.  To accomplish this, invalid
   networks (or domains) could, for example, be configured via a list of
   allowed/disallowed networks (as observed in Section 7.3).  If a
   Request is received from a disallowed network (according to the Node
   Identifier in the Request block), the Request MUST NOT be processed
   and the Reply with the ReturnCode of INFO_HIDDEN SHOULD be used to
   note that.  The router MAY, however, perform rate limited logging of
   such events.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

10.3.  Topology Discovery

   CCNinfo can be used to discover actively used topologies.  If a
   network topology is not disclosed, CCNinfo Requests SHOULD be
   restricted at the border of the domain using the ADMIN_PROHIB return
   code.

10.4.  Characteristics of Content

   CCNinfo can be used to discover the type of content being sent by
   publishers.  If this information is a secret, CCNinfo Requests SHOULD
   be restricted at the border of the domain, using the ADMIN_PROHIB
   return code.

10.5.  Computational Attacks

   CCNinfo may impose heavy tasks at content forwarders because it makes
   content forwarders seek their internal cache states reported in the
   Reply messages whenever they form the Reply messages.  The current
   CCNinfo specification allows to return null values for several
   fields, such as First/Last Seqnum or Elapsed Cache Time fields in the
   Reply sub-block.  As mentioned in Section 3.2.1.1, these values MAY
   be null.  This means that the content forwarder can not only hide
   these values owing to privacy/security policies, but also skip the
   implementations of the complex functions to report these values.

10.6.  Longer or Shorter CCNinfo Reply Timeout

   Routers can configure CCNinfo Reply Timeout (Section 7.1), which is
   the allowable timeout value to keep the PIT entry.  If routers
   configure a longer timeout value, there may be an attractive attack
   vector against the PIT memory.  Moreover, especially when the full
   discovery request option (Section 5.3) is specified for the CCNinfo
   Request, several Reply messages may be returned and cause a response
   storm.  (See Section 10.8 for rate-limiting to avoid the storm).  To
   avoid DoS attacks, routers MAY configure the timeout value, which is
   shorter than the user-configured CCNinfo timeout value.  However, if
   it is too short, the Request may be timed out and the CCNinfo user
   does not receive all Replies; s/he only retrieves the partial path
   information (i.e., information about a part of the tree).

   There may be a way to enable incremental exploration (i.e., to
   explore the part of the tree that was not explored by the previous
   operation); however, discussing such mechanisms is out of scope of
   this document.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

10.7.  Limiting Request Rates

   A router MAY rate-limit CCNinfo Requests by ignoring some of the
   consecutive messages.  The router MAY randomly ignore the received
   messages to minimize the processing overhead, i.e., to keep fairness
   in processing requests, or prevent traffic amplification.  In such a
   case, no error message is returned.  The rate limit function is left
   to the router's implementation.

10.8.  Limiting Reply Rates

   CCNinfo supporting multipath forwarding may result in one Request
   returning multiple Reply messages.  To prevent abuse, the routers in
   the traced path MAY need to rate-limit the Replies.  In such a case,
   no error message is returned.  The rate limit function is left to the
   router's implementation.

10.9.  Adjacency Verification

   It is assumed that the CCNinfo Request and Reply messages are
   forwarded by adjacent neighbor nodes or routers.  The CCNx message
   format or semantics do not define a secure way to verify the node/
   router adjacency, while HopAuth [11] provides a possible method for
   an adjacency verification and defines the corresponding message
   format for adjacency verification as well as the router behaviors.
   CCNinfo MAY use a similar method for node adjacency verification.

11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Jerome Francois, Erik Kline, Spyridon
   Mastorakis, Paulo Mendes, Ilya Moiseenko, David Oran, and Thierry
   Turletti for their valuable comments and suggestions on this
   document.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [1]        Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx Messages in TLV
              Format", RFC 8609, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8609>.

   [2]        Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx Semantics",
              RFC 8569, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8569>.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   [3]        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/info/rfc2119>.

   [4]        Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [5]        Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [6]        Wood, C., Afanasyev, A., Zhang, L., Oran, D., and C.
              Tschudin, "Information-Centric Networking (ICN): Content-
              Centric Networking (CCNx) and Named Data Networking (NDN)
              Terminology", RFC 8793, June 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8793>.

   [7]        Asaeda, H., Matsuzono, K., and T. Turletti, "Contrace: A
              Tool for Measuring and Tracing Content-Centric Networks",
              IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol.53, No.3, pp.182-188,
              March 2015.

   [8]        Mastorakis, S., Gibson, J., Moiseenko, I., Droms, R., and
              D. Oran, "ICN Ping Protocol Specification", draft-irtf-
              icnrg-icnping-06 (work in progress), May 2022.

   [9]        Mastorakis, S., Gibson, J., Moiseenko, I., Droms, R., and
              D. Oran, "ICN Traceroute Protocol Specification", draft-
              irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-06 (work in progress), May 2022.

   [10]       Asaeda, H., Mayer, K., and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version 2:
              Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", RFC 8487, October
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8487>.

   [11]       Li, R. and H. Asaeda, "Hop-by-Hop Authentication in
              Content-Centric Networking/Named Data Networking", draft-
              li-icnrg-hopauth-02 (work in progress), February 2020.

   [12]       Li, R., Matsuzono, K., Asaeda, H., and X. Fu, "Consecutive
              Caching and Adaptive Retrieval for In-Network Big Data
              Sharing", Proc. IEEE ICC, Kansas City, USA, May 2018.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   [13]       Asaeda, H., Ooka, A., Matsuzono, K., and R. Li, "Cefore:
              Software Platform Enabling Content-Centric Networking and
              Beyond", IEICE Transaction on Communications, Vol.E102-B,
              No.9, pp.1792-1803, September 2019.

   [14]       "Cefore Home Page", <https://cefore.net/>.

Appendix A.  ccninfo Command and Options

   CCNinfo is implemented in Cefore [13][14].  The command invoked by
   the CCNinfo user (e.g., consumer) is named "ccninfo".  The ccninfo
   command sends the Request message and receives the Reply message(s).
   There are several options that can be specified with ccninfo, while
   the content name prefix (e.g., ccnx:/news/today) is the mandatory
   parameter.

   The usage of ccninfo command is as follows:

   Usage: ccninfo [-c] [-f] [-o] [-V] [-r hop_count] [-s hop_count] [-v
          algo] name_prefix

   name_prefix
      Prefix name of content (e.g., ccnx:/news/today) or exact name of
      content (e.g., ccnx:/news/today/Chunk=10) the CCNinfo user wants
      to trace.

   c option
      This option can be specified if a CCNinfo user needs the cache
      information as well as the routing path information for the
      specified content/cache and RTT between the CCNinfo user and
      content forwarder.

   f option
      This option enables the "full discovery request"; routers send
      CCNinfo Requests to multiple upstream faces based on their FIBs
      simultaneously.  The CCNinfo user can then trace all possible
      forwarding paths.

   o option
      This option enables to trace the path to the content publisher.
      Each router along the path to the publisher inserts each Report
      block and forwards the Request message.  It does not send Reply
      even if it caches the specified content.  FHR that attaches the
      publisher (who has the complete set of content and is not a
      caching router) sends the Reply message.

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   V option
      This option requests the Reply sender to validate the Reply
      message with the Reply sender's signature.  The Reply message will
      then include the CCNx ValidationPayload TLV.  The validation
      algorithm is selected by the Reply sender.

   r option
      Number of traced routers.  This value is set in the "HopLimit"
      field located in the fixed header of the Request.  For example,
      when the CCNinfo user invokes the CCNinfo command with this
      option, such as "-r 3", only three routers along the path examine
      their path and cache information.

   s option
      Number of skipped routers.  This value is set in the "SkipHop"
      field located in the Request block TLV.  For example, when the
      CCNinfo user invokes the CCNinfo command with this option, such as
      "-s 3", three upstream routers along the path only forward the
      Request message but do not append their Report blocks in the hop-
      by-hop header and do not send Reply messages despite having the
      corresponding cache.

   v option
      This option enables the CCNinfo user to validate the Request
      message with his/her signature.  The Request message will include
      the CCNx ValidationPayload TLV.  The validation algorithm is
      specified by the CCNinfo user.

Authors' Addresses

   Hitoshi Asaeda
   National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
   4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei,
   Tokyo 184-8795
   Japan
   Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp

   Atsushi Ooka
   National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
   4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei,
   Tokyo 184-8795
   Japan
   Email: a-ooka@nict.go.jp

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft                   CCNinfo                    October 2022

   Xun Shao
   Toyohashi University of Technology
   1-1 Hibarigaoka Tempaku-cho, Toyohashi,
   Aichi 441-8580
   Japan
   Email: shao.xun.ls@tut.jp

Asaeda, et al.            Expires 8 April 2023                 [Page 40]