Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) Reflection
draft-mh-6man-icmpv6-reflection-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Tal Mizrahi , hexiaoming , Tianran Zhou , Ron Bonica , Xiao Min | ||
Last updated | 2024-10-09 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-mh-6man-icmpv6-reflection-01
6MAN T. Mizrahi Internet-Draft Huawei Updates: 8335 (if approved) X. He Intended status: Standards Track China Telecom Expires: 12 April 2025 T. Zhou Huawei R. Bonica Juniper Networks X. Min ZTE Corp. 9 October 2024 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) Reflection draft-mh-6man-icmpv6-reflection-01 Abstract This document describes the ICMPv6 Reflection utility. ICMPv6 Reflection uses a request-response handshake that is similar to ICMPv6 Echo, except that after a request is sent, the corresponding reply includes the request message itself or a subset of its fields as specified in the request. Specifically, the IPv6 header of the request message and its IPv6 extension headers, if they are present, can be included in the reply. Network operators can use ICMPv6 Reflection to determine how IPv6 extension headers have been altered by transit nodes. 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 12 April 2025. Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. ICMP Extension Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Reflection Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Reflect All Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Reflect IPv6 Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. Reflect HBH Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.5. Reflect Routing Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.6. Reflect Destination Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.7. Reflect Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.8. Reflect Arbitrary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Updates to [RFC8335] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction The IPv6 Reflection utility is an IPv6 [RFC8200] diagnostic tool. It is similar to the Ping [RFC2151] and PROBE [RFC8335] utilities in the following respects: * A probing node sends an ICMPv6 [RFC4443] message to a probed node. This ICMP message requests specific information. Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 * The probed node receives the above-mentioned message, encodes the requested information in another ICMPv6 message, and sends it back to the probing node. For the purposes of this document, the ICMPv6 message that the probing node sends is called the "request message" and the message that the probed node sends is called the "reply message". In the IPv6 Reflection utility, the following information can be requested: * The status of an interface on the probed node. * A copy of the entire request message, including the encapsulating IPv6 header and its extension headers, as it arrived at the probed node. The probing node can also request specific pieces of the request message, as they arrived at the probing node, such as the IPv6 header of the request or one of its IPv6 extension headers. The ICMPv6 Reflection procedure uses Extended Echo Request and Extended Echo Reply messages. As defined in [RFC8335], each of these message types can include an extension structure [RFC4884]. ICMPv6 Reflection uses these extension structures to reflect the request message or a subset of its fields back to the probing node. This is performed by specific extension objects that are defined in this document. 2. Conventions 2.1. Requirement Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2.2. Terminology Abbreviations used in this document: ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 3. Use Cases The following protocols define IPv6 extension headers that can be used for tracing a path and its performance: * IPv6 Options for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) [RFC9486] * Inband Flow Analyzer [I-D.kumar-ippm-ifa] * Path Tracing in SRv6 networks [I-D.filsfils-ippm-path-tracing] * Segment Routing Header encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data [I-D.ali-spring-ioam-srv6] These extensions are used for collecting information along a packet's delivery path. Currently, the collected information is sent to a controller for processing. However, in some cases this information is relevant to the sender. The ICMPv6 Reflection utility provides a mechanism by which this information can be returned to the probing node. 4. Theory of Operation The probing node sends an ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message [RFC8335] to the probed node. The ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message contains an ICMP Extension Header [RFC4884], followed by any combination of the extension objects defined in Section 5 of this document. These objects are referred to as Reflection objects. Each object indicates that the probing node requests some or all of the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message, as it arrived at the probed node, to be reflected back to the probing node. Each object in the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message contains an object payload field whose length SHOULD be sufficient to carry the requested information. The total length of the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message MUST NOT exceed the IPv6 minimum MTU (1280 bytes.) The probed node receives the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request and formats an ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message. The main body of the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message reflects the status of the interface identified by the Destination Address field in the IPv6 header, as defined in [RFC8335]. The ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message contains an ICMP Extension Header, followed by all of the objects that the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message contained. They are listed in the order that they Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 appeared in the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message. The probed node copies the requested information into the object payload field of the object if all of the following requirements are satisfied: * The probed node supports the object. * Divulging the requested information does not violate the probed node's security policy. * The payload field is sufficiently large to accommodate the requested data without truncation. Otherwise, it sets the object payload field to all zeros. An example of a request and a reply is illustrated in Figure 1. In this example the request incorporates two Reflection objects. The 'Reflect All' object requests the entire request message up to and including the ICMP extension header. The 'Reflect Arbitrary Data' object is reflected by the probed node including the arbitrary data in the object payload. The request and reply include the same set of objects, and each object has the same length in the request and reply, making the request and reply symmetric in length. Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 +----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ | IPv6 Header | | IPv6 Header | | and extension headers | | and extension headers | +----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ | ICMPv6 Header | | ICMPv6 Header | | Extended Echo Request | | Extended Echo Reply | +----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ | ICMP Extension Header | | ICMP Extension Header | +-+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ | |'Reflect All' Object Header | |'Reflect All' Object Header | | +----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ | | Object payload | | Request's IPv6 Header | | | (placeholder) | | and extension headers | | | | | ------------------------ | | | | | Request's ICMPv6 Header | One -+ | | | Extended Echo Request | or | | | | ------------------------ | more | | | | Request's ICMP Ext. Header | Ref- | +----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ lec- | |'Reflect Arbitrary Data' Hdr| |'Reflect Arbitrary Data' Hdr| tion | +----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ obj- | | Object payload | | Object payload | ects | | Arbitrary data | | Request's Arbitrary data | +-+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | +-- Extended Echo Request ---+ +--- Extended Echo Reply ----+ Figure 1: ICMPv6 Reflection Message Formats 5. ICMP Extension Objects This document defines the following extension object classes. * Reflect All * Reflect IPv6 Header * Reflect HBH Header * Reflect Routing Header * Reflect Destination Header * Reflect Request Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 * Reflect Arbitrary Data Collectively, these objects are referred to as Reflection objects. An implementation that supports ICMPv6 Reflection MUST support the Reflect All object and MAY support other Reflection objects. An Extended Echo Request MAY include one or more Reflection object. If the Reflect All object is present, it MUST be the first object. 5.1. Reflection Objects Each Reflection object includes the following: * An object class (as specified in Section 7). * C-Type as described below. * An object payload field, whose length SHOULD be sufficient to contain the requested information without truncation. The C-Type value is used for indicating whether the probed node was able to process the object. The following C-Type values are supported in each of the Reflection objects: * (0) Request * (1) Reply - No Error * (2) Reply - Unsupported Object * (3) Reply - Unsupported due to Security Policy * (4) Reply - Object Length Exceeded The C-Type field of a Reflection object in a request message MUST be set to the 'Request' value. If the probed node is able to process the Reflection object, it incorporates the requested information in the object payload of the respective object in the Extended Echo Reply message, and updates the C-Type field to the 'Reply - No Error' value. If the probed node is not able to process the object for any of the reasons listed in Section 4, it updates the C-Type value of the object in the Extended Echo Reply, indicating the reason for not processing it. Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 5.2. Reflect All Object The requested information in this object is the IPv6 header, all of its extensions, and the ICMPv6 Extened Echo Request up to and including the ICMP extension header, as they arrived at the probed node. In the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message, the object payload field MUST contain all zeros. 5.3. Reflect IPv6 Header The requested information in this object is the IPv6 header, not including the IPv6 extension headers, as it arrived at the probed node. In the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message, the object payload field MUST contain all zeros 5.4. Reflect HBH Header The requested information in this object is the Hop-by-hop Options extension header, as it arrived at the probed node. In the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message, the payload field MUST contain all zeros 5.5. Reflect Routing Header The requested information in this object is the Routing header, as it arrived at the probed node. In the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message, the payload field MUST contain all zeros 5.6. Reflect Destination Header The requested information in this object is the Destination Options header, as it arrived at the probed node. In the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message, the payload field MUST contain all zeros 5.7. Reflect Request The requested information in this object is the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message up to and including the ICMP extension header, as it arrived at the probed node. Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 In the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message, the payload field MUST contain all zeros 5.8. Reflect Arbitrary Data The requested information in this object is the arbitrary data in the object payload field of the current object, as it arrived at the probed node. Reflection of arbitrary data is slightly similar to the way the data of ICMP Echo messages is reflected back to the probing node. In the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message, the object payload field contains arbitrary data. 6. Updates to [RFC8335] OLD: When applied to the ICMP Extended Echo Request message, the ICMP Extension Structure MUST contain exactly one instance of the Interface Identification Object (see Section 2.1). NEW: When applied to the ICMP Extended Echo Request message, the ICMP Extension Structure MUST contain zero or one instances of the Interface Identification Object (see Section 2.1). OLD: The ICMP Extension Structure does not include exactly one Interface Identification Object. NEW: The ICMP Extension Structure includes more than one Interface Identification Object. 7. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to allocate the following values in the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class Sub-types" registry. Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ | Class-Num | Object Name | C-Type | C-Type Name | Reference | +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ | TBD1 | Reflect All | 0-4 | See below | [This document] | | | | | | | +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ | TBD2 | Reflect IPv6 | 0-4 | See below | [This document] | | | Header | | | | +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ | TBD3 | Reflect HBH | 0-4 | See below | [This document] | | | Header | | | | +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ | TBD4 | Reflect Routing | 0-4 | See below | [This document] | | | Header | | | | +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ | TBD5 | Reflect | 0-4 | See below | [This document] | | | Destination | | | | | | Header | | | | +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ | TBD6 | Reflect Request | 0-4 | See below | [This document] | | | | | | | +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ | TBD7 | Reflect | 0-4 | See below | [This document] | | | Arbitrary Data | | | | +-----------+------------------+--------+---------------+-----------------+ Figure 2: IANA Allocation For each of the object classes above the following C-Type values are defined: * (0) Request * (1) Reply - No Error * (2) Reply - Unsupported Object * (3) Reply - Unsupported due to Security Policy * (4) Reply - Object Length Exceeded 8. Security Considerations Since this document uses technologies from [RFC4443], [RFC4884], and [RFC8335], it inherits security considerations from those documents. Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 The Reflection procedure that is defined in this document is symmetric in terms of the length of the request and reply messages. This symmetry mitigates the potential for amplification attacks, which would be possible if the reply message was longer than the request message. Depending on the network policy and the location of nodes in the network, ICMPv6 informational and/or error messages are sometimes filtered or not supported. For example, some nodes do not reply to ICMPv6 Echo or do not send ICMPv6 Time Exceeded messages (used in Traceroute), due to policy considerations that may be related to DoS mitigation or to privacy. Network operators SHOULD apply similar considerations to ICMPv6 Extended Echo messages when they are used for Reflection. For example, an operator can choose to disable support for ICMPv6 Reflection in networks or in nodes that do not respond to ICMPv6 Echo and/or do not generate ICMPv6 Time Exceeded messages. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2151] Kessler, G. and S. Shepard, "A Primer On Internet and TCP/ IP Tools and Utilities", FYI 30, RFC 2151, DOI 10.17487/RFC2151, June 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2151>. [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>. [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. [RFC8335] Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M. Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces", RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ali-spring-ioam-srv6] Ali, Z., Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Brockners, F., Nainar, N. K., Pignataro, C., Li, C., Chen, M., and G. Dawra, "Segment Routing Header encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ali-spring- ioam-srv6-06, 10 July 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ali-spring- ioam-srv6-06>. [I-D.filsfils-ippm-path-tracing] Filsfils, C., Abdelsalam, A., Camarillo, P., Yufit, M., Graf, T., Su, Y., Matsushima, S., Valentine, M., and Dhamija, "Path Tracing in SRv6 networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-filsfils-ippm-path- tracing-01, 2 June 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils- ippm-path-tracing-01>. [I-D.kumar-ippm-ifa] Kumar, J., Anubolu, S., Lemon, J., Manur, R., Holbrook, H., Ghanwani, A., Cai, D., Ou, H., Li, Y., and X. Wang, "Inband Flow Analyzer", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-kumar-ippm-ifa-08, 26 April 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kumar-ippm- ifa-08>. [RFC9486] Bhandari, S., Ed. and F. Brockners, Ed., "IPv6 Options for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9486, DOI 10.17487/RFC9486, September 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9486>. Contributors Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 Shahar Belkar Huawei 8-2 Matam Haifa 3190501 Israel Email: shahar.belkar@huawei.com Chongfeng Xie China Telecom Email: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn Zhenqiang Li China Mobile Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com Justin Iurman Universite de Liege 10, Allee de la decouverte (B28) 4000 Sart-Tilman Belgium Email: justin.iurman@uliege.be Authors' Addresses Tal Mizrahi Huawei 8-2 Matam Haifa 3190501 Israel Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com Xiaoming He China Telecom Email: hexm4@chinatelecom.cn Tianran Zhou Huawei 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ICMPv6 Reflection October 2024 Ron Bonica Juniper Networks United States of America Email: rbonica@juniper.net Xiao Min ZTE Corp. Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Mizrahi, et al. Expires 12 April 2025 [Page 14]