Skip to main content

Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) Reflection
draft-mh-6man-icmpv6-reflection-01

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]