INTAREA R. Bonica
Internet-Draft R. Thomas
Updates: RFC 4884 (if approved) Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track J. Linkova
Expires: September 3, 2017 Google
C. Lenart
Verizon
March 2, 2017
Extended Ping (Xping)
draft-bonica-intarea-eping-04
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 Request
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 September 3, 2017.
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Interface Identification Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. ICMP Extended Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. ICMP Extended Echo and Extended Echo Reply Processing . . . . 9
4.1. Code Field Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The Xping Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Use-Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Unnumbered Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Link-local Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Unadvertised Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Updates to RFC 4884 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Problem Statement
Network operators use Ping [RFC2151] to determine whether a remote
interface is operational. 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 operational.
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:
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
o Global [RFC4291]
o Private [RFC1918]
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 [RFC7404]
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 informational ICMP messages, called Extended
Echo Request and Extended Echo Reply. The Extended Echo Request
message makes a semantic distinction between the destination
interface and the probed interface. The destination interface is the
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
interface to which the Extended Echo Request 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 node. However, the destination and probed
interfaces must be local to one another (i.e., both interfaces must
belong to the same node).
Because the Extended Echo Request 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 Request message and Section 3 describing the Extended
Echo Reply message. Section 4 describes how the probed node
processes the Extended Echo Request message and Section 5 describes
the Xping application. Section 6 describes uses cases.
2. ICMP Extended Echo Request
The ICMP Extended Echo Request message is defined for both ICMPv4 and
ICMPv6. Like any ICMP message, the ICMP Extended Echo Request
message is encapsulated in an IP header. The ICMPv4 version of the
Extended Echo Request message is encapsulated in an IPv4 header,
while the ICMPv6 version is encapsulated in an IPv6 header.
Figure 1 depicts the ICMP Extended Echo Request message.
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
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 Request Message
IP Header fields:
o Source Address: The Source Address MUST be valid IPv4 or IPv6
unicast address belonging to the sending 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 Request. 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 Extended Echo Requests. May be zero.
o Sequence Number: A sequence number to aid in matching Extended
Echo Replies to Extended Echo Requests. 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 Request message can carry an ICMP
Extension Structure that identifies the probed interface by IPv4
address
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
o An ICMPv4 Extended Echo Request message can carry an ICMP
Extension Structure that identifies the probed interface by IPv6
address
o An ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message can carry an ICMP
Extension Structure that identifies the probed interface by IPv4
address
o An ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request 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 Request 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
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].
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
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:
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, (6) IEEE
802, (16389) 48-bit MAC and (16390) 64-bit MAC. 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 defined for both ICMPv4 and
ICMPv6. Like any ICMP message, the ICMP Extended Echo Reply message
is encapsulated in an IP header. The ICMPv4 version of the Extended
Echo Reply message is encapsulated in an IPv4 header, while the
ICMPv6 version is encapsulated in an IPv6 header.
Figure 3 depicts the ICMP Extended Echo Reply message.
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Proto Flags |S| RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: ICMP Extened Echo Reply Message
IP Header fields:
o Source address: Copied from the Destination Address field of the
invoking Extended Echo Request message.
o Destination address: Copied from the Source Address field of the
invoking Extended Echo Request message.
ICMP fields:
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) Malformed Query, (2) No Such Interface,
(3) Multiple Interfaces Satisfy Query
o Checksum: For ICMPv4, see RFC 792. For ICMPv6, see RFC 4443.
o Identifier: Copied from the Identifier field of the invoking
Extended Echo Request packet.
o Sequence Number: Copied from the Sequence Number field of the
invoking Extended Echo Request packet.
o Proto 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 3-7 (Reserved)
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.
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
o Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero and ignored upon receipt.
4. ICMP Extended Echo and Extended Echo Reply Processing
When a node receives an ICMP Extended Echo Request message and any of
the following conditions apply, the node MUST silently discard the
incoming message:
o The node does not recognize ICMP Extended Echo Request messages
o The node has not explicitly enabled ICMP Extended Echo
functionality
o The node has not explicitly enabled the incoming ICMP Extended
Echo Request type (i.e., by ifName, by IfIndex, by Address)
o The incoming ICMP Extend Echo Request carries a source address
that is not authorized for the incoming ICMP Extended Echo Request
type
o The Source Address of the incoming messages is not a unicast
address
Otherwise, when a node receives an ICMPv4 Extended Echo Request, 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 Request, it MUST format
an ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply as follows:
o Hop Limit is 255
o Next Header is ICMPv6
In either case, the responding node MUST:
o Copy the source address from the Extended Echo Request message to
the destination address of the Extended Echo Reply
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
o Copy the destination address from the Extended Echo Request
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 Request message to the
Extended Echo Reply
o Copy the sequence number from the Extended Echo Request 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
The status of the probed interface is determined exactly as if it had
been probed by a directly connected neighbor using traditional ping.
4.1. Code Field Processing
The following rules govern how the Code should be set:
o If the query is malformed, set the Code to Malformed Query (1)
o Otherwise, if the ICMP Extension Structure does not identify any
local interfaces, set the Code to No Such Interface (2)
o Otherwise, if the ICMP Extension Structure identifies more than
one local interfaces, set the Code to Multiple Interfaces Satisfy
Query (3)
o Otherwise, set the code to No Error (0)
5. The Xping 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
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
Request, 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 Request. The Source Interface Address MUST be a
unicast address and MUST identify an interface that is local to the
probing node.
The destination Interface Address identifies the interface to which
the ICMP Extended Echo Request message is sent. It can be an IPv4 or
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.
If the probed interface identifier is specified, it can be any of the
following:
o an interface name
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
o an address from any address family (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, IEEE 802,
48-bit MAC, 64-bit 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. Use-Cases
In the use cases below, Xping can be used to determine the
operational status of a forwarding interface. Other management
protocols (e.g., SNMP) might also be used to obtain this information.
However, we assume that those management protocols are not viable
options, either because they are too heavyweight or they are not
supported on the relevant nodes.
6.1. Unnumbered Interfaces
An IPv4 network contains many routers. On each router, a loopback
interface is numbered from global address space and all forwarding
interfaces are unnumbered. Network operations staff need a tool that
they can execute on any router in the network to determine the
operational status of any forwarding interface in the network.
6.2. Link-local Interfaces
An IPv6 network contains many routers. On each router, a loopback
interface is numbered from global address space and some or all
forwarding interfaces are numbered from link-local address space.
Network operations staff need a tool that they can execute on any
router in the network to determine the operational status of any
forwarding interface in the network.
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
6.3. Unadvertised Interfaces
A network contains many routers. On each router, the loopback
interface and all forwarding interfaces are numbered from global
address space. However, some forwarding interfaces do not
participate in any routing protocol nor are they advertised by any
routing protocol. Network operations staff need a tool that they can
execute on any router in the network to determine the operational
status of any forwarding interface in the network.
7. Updates to RFC 4884
Section 4.6 of RFC 4884 provides a list of extensible ICMP messages
(i.e., messages that can carry the ICMP Extension Structure). This
document adds the ICMP Extended Echo message and the ICMP Extended
Echo Reply message to that list.
8. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following actions from IANA:
o Add an entry to the "ICMP Type Number" registry, representing the
Extended Echo Request. 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
Request. 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) Malformed Query, (2) No Such Interface, (3) 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)
Malformed Query, (2) No Such Interface, (3) 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 "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)
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
9. Security Considerations
The following are legitimate uses of Xping:
o to determine the operational status of an interface
o to determine which protocols (e.g., IPv4, IPv6) are active on an
interface
However, malicious parties can use Xping to obtain additional
information. For example, a malicious party can use Xping to
discover interface names. Having discovered an interface name, the
malicious party may be able to infer additional information.
Additional information may include:
o interface bandwidth
o the type of device that supports the interface (e.g., vendor
identity)
o the operating system version that the above-mentioned device
executes
Understanding this risk, network operators establish policies that
restrict access to ICMP Extended Echo functionality. In order to
enforce these polices, nodes that support ICMP Extended Echo
functionality MUST support the following configuration options:
o Enable/disable ICMP Extended Echo functionality. By default, ICMP
Extend Echo functionality is disabled.
o Define enabled query types (i.e., by ifName, by ifIndex, by
Address). By default, all query types are disabled.
o For each enabled query type, define the prefixes from which ICMP
Extended Echo Request messages are permitted
o For each interface, determine whether ICMP Echo Request messages
are accepted
When a node receives an ICMP Extended Echo Request message that it is
not configured to support, it MUST silently discard the message. See
Section 4 for details.
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
In order to protect local resources, implementations SHOULD rate-
limit incoming ICMP Extended Echo Request messages.
10. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jeff Haas, Carlos Pignataro, Jonathan Looney and Joe Touch
for their thoughtful review of this document.
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[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>.
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
11.2. 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7404] Behringer, M. and E. Vyncke, "Using Only Link-Local
Addressing inside an IPv6 Network", RFC 7404,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7404, November 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7404>.
Authors' Addresses
Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks
2251 Corporate Park Drive
Herndon, Virginia 20171
USA
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Extended Ping (eping) March 2017
Reji Thomas
Juniper Networks
Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: rejithomas@juniper.net
Jen Linkova
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043
USA
Email: furry@google.com
Chris Lenart
Verizon
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Ashburn, Virginia 20147
USA
Email: chris.lenart@verizon.com
Bonica, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 17]
