INTAREA                                                        R. Bonica
Internet-Draft                                                 R. Thomas
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: April 9, 2017                                   October 6, 2016


                         Extended Ping (Xping)
                     draft-bonica-intarea-eping-02

Abstract

   This document describes a new diagnostic tool called Extended Ping
   (Xping).  Network operators execute Xping to determine the status of
   a remote interface.  In this respect, Xping is similar to Ping.
   Xping differs from Ping in that it does not require network
   reachability between itself and remote interface whose status is
   being queried.

   Xping relies on two new ICMP messages, called Extended Echo and
   Extended Echo Reply.  Both ICMP messages are defined herein.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2017.








Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  ICMP Extended Echo  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Interface Identification Object . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  ICMP Extended Echo Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  ICMP Extended Echo and Extended Echo Reply Processing . . . .   8
     4.1.  Code Field Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  The Eping Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  An Appendix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Problem Statement

   Network operators use Ping [RFC2151] to determine whether a remote
   interface is alive.  Ping sends an ICMP [RFC0792] [RFC4443] Echo
   message to the interface being probed and waits for an ICMP Echo
   Reply.  If Ping receives the expected ICMP Echo Reply, it reports
   that the probed interface is alive.

   In order for the ICMP Echo message to reach the probed interface, the
   probed interface must be addressed appropriately.  IP addresses are
   scoped as follows:

   o  Global [RFC4291]

   o  Private [RFC1918] [RFC4193]



Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   o  Link-local [RFC3927] [RFC4291]

   Global addresses are the most widely scoped.  A globally addressed
   interface can be reached from any node on the Internet.  By contrast,
   link-local addresses are the least widely scoped.  An interface whose
   only address is link-local can be reached from on-link interfaces
   only.

   Network operators seek to decrease their dependence on widely-scoped
   interface addressing.  For example:

   o  The operator of an IPv4 network currently assigns global addresses
      to all interfaces.  In order to conserve scarce IPv4 address
      space, this operator seeks to renumber selected interfaces with
      private addresses.

   o  The operator of an IPv4 network currently assigns private
      addresses to all interfaces.  In order to achieve operational
      efficiencies, this operator seeks to leave selected interfaces
      unnumbered.

   o  The operator of an IPv6 network currently assigns global addresses
      to all interfaces.  In order to achieve operational efficiencies,
      this operator seeks to number selected interfaces with link-local
      addresses only.

   When a network operator renumbers an interface, replacing a more
   widely scoped address with one that is less widely scoped, the
   operator also reduces the number of nodes from which Ping can probe
   the interface.  Therefore, many network operators who rely on Ping
   remain dependant upon widely scoped interface addressing.

   This document describes a new diagnostic tool called Extended Ping
   (Xping).  Network operators use Xping to determine the status of a
   remote interface.  In this respect, Xping is similar to Ping.  Xping
   differs from Ping in that it does not require reachability between
   the probing node and the probed interface.  Or, said another way,
   Xping does not require reachability between the node upon which it
   executes and the interface whose status is being queried.

   Xping relies on two new ICMP messages, called Extended Echo and
   Extended Echo Reply.  The Extended Echo message makes a semantic
   distinction between the destination interface and the probed
   interface.  The destination interface is the interface to which the
   Extended Echo message is delivered.  It must be reachable from the
   probing node.  The probed interface is the interface whose status is
   being queried.  It does not need to be reachable from the probing




Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   node.  However, the destination and probed interfaces must be local
   to one another (i.e., the same node must support both interfaces).

   Because the Extended Echo message makes a distinction between the
   destination and probed interfaces, Xping can probe every interface on
   a node if it can reach any interface on the node.  In many cases,
   this allows network operators to decrease their dependence on widely
   scoped interface addressing.

   Network operators can use Xping to determine the operational status
   of the probed interface.  They can also use Xping to determine which
   protocols (e.g., IPv4, IPv6) are active on the interface.  However,
   they cannot use Xping to obtain other information regarding the
   interface (e.g., bandwidth, MTU).  In order to obtain such
   information, they should use other network management protocols
   (e.g., SNMP, Netconf).

   This document is divided into sections, with Section 2 describing the
   Extended Echo message and Section 3 describing the Extended Echo
   Reply message.  Section 4 describes how the probed node processes the
   Extended Echo message and Section 5 describes the Xping application.

2.  ICMP Extended Echo

   The ICMP Extended Echo message is applicable to both ICMPv4 and
   ICMPv6.  Like any ICMP message, the ICMP Extended Echo message is
   encapsulated in an IP header.  The ICMPv4 version of the Extended
   Echo message is encapsulated in an IPv4 header, while the ICMPv6
   version is encapsulated in an IPv6 header.

   Figure 1 depicts the ICMP Extended Echo message.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Identifier          |        Sequence Number        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   ICMP Extension Structure




                   Figure 1: ICMP Extended Echo Message

   IP Header fields:




Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   o  Source Address: Identifies an interface on the probing node.

   o  Destination Address: Identifies the destination interface (i.e.,
      the interface to which this message will be delivered).

   ICMP fields:

   o  Type: Extended Echo.  The value for ICMPv4 is TBD by IANA.  The
      value for ICMPv6 is also TBD by IANA.

   o  Code: 0

   o  Checksum: For ICMPv4, see RFC 792.  For ICMPv6, see RFC 4443.

   o  Identifier: An identifier to aid in matching Extended Echo Replies
      to this Extended Echo Request.  May be zero.

   o  Sequence Number: A sequence number to aid in matching Extended
      Echo Replies to this Extended Echo Request.  May be zero.

   o  ICMP Extension Structure: Identifies the probed interface, by
      name, index or address.

   If the ICMP Extension Structure identifies the probed interface by
   address, that address can be a member of any address family.  For
   example:

   o  An ICMPv4 Extended Echo message can carry an ICMP Extension
      Structure that identifies the probed interface by IPv4 address

   o  An ICMPv4 Extended Echo message can carry an ICMP Extension
      Structure that identifies the probed interface by IPv6 address

   o  An ICMPv6 Extended Echo message can carry an ICMP Extension
      Structure that identifies the probed interface by IPv4 address

   o  An ICMPv6 Extended Echo message can carry an ICMP Extension
      Structure that identifies the probed interface by IPv6 address

   Section 7 of [RFC4884] defines the ICMP Extension Structure.  As per
   RFC 4884, the Extension Structure contains exactly one Extension
   Header followed by one or more objects.  When applied to the ICMP
   Extended Echo message, the ICMP Extension Structure contains one or
   two instances of the Interface Identification Object (Section 2.1).

   In most cases, a single instance of the Interface Identification
   Object can identify the probed interface.  However, two instance are




Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   required when neither uniquely identifies a interface (e.g., an IPv6
   link-local address and an IEEE 802 address.

2.1.  Interface Identification Object

   The Interface Identification Object identifies the probed interface
   by name, index, or address.  Like any other ICMP Extension Object, it
   contains an Object Header and Object Payload.  The Object Header
   contains the following fields:

   o  Class-Num: Interface Identification Object.  Value is TBD by IANA

   o  C-type: Values are: (1) Identifies Interface By Name, (2)
      Identifies Interface By Index, and (3) Identifies Interface By
      Address

   o  Length: Length of the object, measured in octets, including the
      object header and object payload.

   If the Interface Identification Object identifies the probed
   interface by name, the object payload contains the human-readable
   interface name.  The interface name SHOULD be the full MIB-II ifName
   [RFC2863], if less than 255 octets, or the first 255 octets of the
   ifName, if the ifName is longer.  The interface name MAY be some
   other human-meaningful name of the interface.  The interface name
   MUST be represented in the UTF-8 charset [RFC3629] using the Default
   Language [RFC2277].

   If the Interface Identification Object identifies the probed
   interface by index, the length is equal to 8 and the payload contains
   the MIB-II ifIndex [RFC 2863].

   If the Interface Identification Object identifies the probed
   interface by address, the payload is as depicted in Figure 2.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            AFI                |        Reserved               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Address   ....




       Figure 2: Interface Identification Object - C-type 3 Payload

   Payload fields are defined as follows:



Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   o  Address Family Identifier (AFI): This 16-bit field identifies the
      type of address represented by the Address field.  All values
      found in the IANA registry of Address Family Numbers (available
      from <http://www.iana.org>) are valid in this field.
      Implementations MUST support values (1) IPv4, (2) IPv6 and (6)
      IEEE 802.  They MAY support other values.

   o  Reserved: This 16-bit field MUST be set to zero and ignored upon
      receipt.

   o  Address: This variable-length field represents an address
      associated with the probed interface.

3.  ICMP Extended Echo Reply

   The ICMP Extended Echo Reply message is applicable to both ICMPv4 and
   ICMPv6.  Like any ICMP message, the ICMP Extended Echo Reply message
   is encapsulated in an IP header.  The ICMPv4 version of the Extended
   Echo Reply message is encapsulated in an IPv4 header, while the
   ICMPv6 version is encapsulated in an IPv6 header.

   Figure 3 depicts the ICMP Extended Echo Reply message.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Identifier          |        Sequence Number        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |S|       Reserved              |        Protocol Flags         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





                 Figure 3: ICMP Extened Echo Reply Message

   IP Header fields:

   o  Source address: Identifies the interface to which the
      corresponding ICMP Extended Echo message was sent

   o  Destination address: Identifies the interface from which the
      corresponding ICMP Extended Echo message was sent

   ICMP fields:



Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   o  Type: Extended Echo Reply.  The value for ICMPv4 is TBD by IANA.
      The value for ICMPv6 is also TBD by IANA.

   o  Code: (0) No Error, (1) Xping Not Enabled, (2) Malformed Query,
      (3) Query Type Not Enabled, (4) No Such Interface, (5) Multiple
      Interfaces Satisfy Query

   o  Checksum: For ICMPv4, see RFC 792.  For ICMPv6, see RFC 4443.

   o  Identifier: An identifier to aid in matching Extended Echo Replies
      to this Extended Echo Request.  May be zero.

   o  Sequence Number: A sequence number to aid in matching Extended
      Echo Replies to this Extended Echo Request.  May be zero.

   o  S Bit: This bit is set if the Code field is equal to No Error (0)
      and the probed interface is active.  Otherwise, this bit is clear.

   o  Reserved: This 15-bit field MUST be set to zero and ignored upon
      receipt.

   o  Protocol Flags: Each bit in this field represents a protocol.  The
      bit is set if the S-bit is set and the corresponding protocol is
      running on the probed interface.  Bit mappings are as follows: Bit
      0 (IPv4), Bit 1 (IPv6), Bit 2 (Ethernet), Bits 3-15 (Reserved)

4.  ICMP Extended Echo and Extended Echo Reply Processing

   When a node receives an ICMPv4 Extended Echo, it MUST format an ICMP
   Extended Echo Reply as follows:

   o  Don't Fragment flag (DF) is 1

   o  More Fragments flag is 0

   o  Fragment Offset is 0

   o  TTL is 255

   o  Protocol is ICMP

   When a node receives an ICMPv6 Extended Echo, it MUST format an
   ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply as follows:

   o  Hop Limit is 255

   o  Next Header is ICMPv6




Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   In either case, the responding node MUST:

   o  Copy the source address from the Extended Echo message to the
      destination address of the Extended Echo Reply

   o  Copy the destination address from the Extended Echo message to the
      source address of the Extended Echo Reply

   o  Set the DiffServ codepoint to CS0 [RFC4594]

   o  Set the ICMP Type to Extended Echo Reply

   o  Copy the Identifier from the Extended Echo message to the Extended
      Echo Reply

   o  Copy the sequence number from the Extended Echo message to the
      Extended Echo Reply

   o  Set the Code field as described Section 4.1

   o  If the Code Field is equal to No Error (0) and the probed
      interface is active, set the S-Bit.  Otherwise, clear the S-Bit.

   o  If the S-bit is set, set Protocol Flags as appropriate.
      Otherwise, clear all Protocol Flags.

   o  Set the checksum appropriately

   o  Forward the ICMP Extended Echo Reply to its destination

4.1.  Code Field Processing

   The following rules govern how the Code should be set:

   o  If Xping is not enabled, set the Code to Xping Not Enabled (1)

   o  Otherwise, if the query is malformed, set the Code to Malformed
      Query (2)

   o  Otherwise, if the query type is not supported, set the Code to
      Query Type Not Enabled (3)

   o  Otherwise, if the ICMP Extension Structure does not identify any
      local interfaces, set the Code to No Such Interface (4)

   o  Otherwise, if the ICMP Extension Structure identifies more than
      one local interfaces, set the Code to Multiple Interfaces Satisfy
      Query (5)



Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   o  Otherwise, set the code to No Error (0)

5.  The Eping Application

   The Xping application accepts input parameters, sets a counter and
   enters a loop to be exited when the counter is equal to zero.  On
   each iteration of the loop, Xping emits an ICMP Extended Echo,
   decrements the counter, sets a timer, waits for the timer to expire.
   If an expected ICMP Extended Echo Reply arrives while Xping is
   waiting for the timer to expire, Xping relays information returned by
   that message to its user.  However, on each iteration of the loop,
   Xping waits for the timer to expire, regardless of whether an
   Extended Echo Reply message arrives.

   Xping accepts the following parameters:

   o  Count

   o  Wait

   o  Source Interface Address

   o  Hop Count

   o  Destination Interface Address

   o  Probed Interface Identifier

   Count is a positive integer whose default value is 3.  Count
   determines the number of times that Xping iterates through the above-
   mentioned loop.

   Wait is a positive integer whose minimum and default values are 1.
   Wait determines the duration of the above-mentioned timer, measured
   in seconds.

   Source Interface Address specifies the source address of ICMP
   Extended Echo.  The source address MUST identify an interface that is
   local to the probing node.

   The destination Interface Address identifies the interface to which
   the ICMP Extended Echo message is sent.  It can be an IPv4 address or
   an IPv6 address.  If it is an IPv4 address, Xping emits an ICMPv4
   message.  If it is an IPv6 address, Xping emits an ICMPv6 message.

   The probed interface is the interface whose status is being queried.
   If the probed interface identifier is not specified, the Xping
   application invokes the traditional Ping application and terminates.



Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   If the probed interface identifier is specified, it can be any of the
   following:

   o  an interface name

   o  an address from any address family (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, MAC)

   o  an ifIndex

   The probed interface identifier can have any scope.  For example, the
   probed interface identifier can be:

   o  an IPv6 address, whose scope is global

   o  an IPv6 address, whose scope is link-local

   o  an interface name, whose scope is node-local

   o  an ifIndex, whose scope is node-local

   If the probed interface identifier is an address, it does not need to
   be of the same address family as the destination interface address.
   For example, Xping accepts an IPv4 destination interface address and
   an IPv6 probed interface identifier.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests the following actions from IANA:

   o  Add an entry to the "ICMP Type Number" registry, representing the
      Extended Echo.  This entry has one code (0).

   o  Add an entry to the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6
      (ICMPv6) Parameters" registry, representing the Extended Echo.
      This entry has one code (0).

   o  Add an entry to the "ICMP Type Number" registry, representing the
      Extended Echo Reply.  This entry has the following codes: (0) No
      Error, (1) Xping Not Enabled, (2) Malformed Query, (3) Query Type
      Not Enabled, (4) No Such Interface, (5) Multiple Interfaces
      Satisfy Query.  Protocol Flag Bit mappings are as follows: Bit 0
      (IPv4), Bit 1 (IPv6), Bit 2 (Ethernet), Bits 3-15 (Reserved).

   o  Add an entry to the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6
      (ICMPv6) Parameters" registry, representing the Extended Echo
      Reply.  This entry has the following codes: (0) No Error, (1)
      Xping Not Enabled, (2) Malformed Query, (3) Query Type Not
      Enabled, (4) No Such Interface, (5) Multiple Interfaces Satisfy



Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


      Query.  Protocol Flag Bit mappings are as follows: Bit 0 (IPv4),
      Bit 1 (IPv6), Bit 2 (Ethernet), Bits 3-15 (Reserved).

   o  Add an entry to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class Sub-
      types" registry, representing the Interface Identification Object.
      It has C-types Reserved (0), Identifies Interface By Name (1),
      Identifies Interface By Index (2), Identifies Interface By Address
      (3)

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

7.  Security Considerations

   Implementations MUST include a configuration option that enables
   processing of the ICMP Extended Echo.  By default, this configuration
   option MUST be disabled.  When an implementation receives an ICMP
   Extended Echo and this configuration option is disabled, the
   implementation returns an ICMP Extended Reply with Code equal to
   Xping Not Enabled (1).

   Implementations MUST also include a configuration options that enable
   the probed interface identification by name, index and address.  By
   default, these configuration options MUST be enabled.  When an
   implementation receives an ICMP Extended Echo and the appropriate
   configuration option is disabled, the implementation returns an ICMP
   Extended Reply with Code equal to Query Type Not Enabled (3).

8.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Jeff Haas, Carlos Pignataro and Joe Touch for their
   thoughtful review of this document.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.






Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
              January 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>.

   [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
              MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC4884]  Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
              "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC2151]  Kessler, G. and S. Shepard, "A Primer On Internet and TCP/
              IP Tools and Utilities", FYI 30, RFC 2151,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2151, June 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2151>.

   [RFC3927]  Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
              Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3927, May 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3927>.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.




Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            Extended Ping (eping)             October 2016


   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.

Appendix A.  An Appendix

Authors' Addresses

   Ron Bonica
   Juniper Networks
   2251 Corporate Park Drive
   Herndon, Virginia  20171
   USA

   Email: rbonica@juniper.net


   Reji Thomas
   Juniper Networks
   Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey
   Bangalore, Kanata  560103
   India

   Email: rejithomas@juniper.net


























Bonica & Thomas           Expires April 9, 2017                [Page 14]