ICMP Extension Header Length Field

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 25 May 2025.¶

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

The ICMP Extension Structure [RFC4884] does not have a length field. Therefore, unless the length of the Extension Structure can be inferred from other data in the ICMP message, the Extension Structure must be the last item in the ICMP message.¶

This document defines a length field for the ICMP Extension Structure. When length information is provided, receivers can use it to parse ICMP messages. Specifically, receivers can use length information to determine the offset at which the item after the ICMP Extension Structure begins.¶

2. Conventions and Definitions

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 BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

3. The ICMP Extension Structure

Figure 1 depicts the ICMP Extension Header.¶

   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |Version|  Rsvd |     Length    |           Checksum            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Version: 4 bits¶

• Defined in [RFC4884]¶

Reserved (Rsvd): 4 bits¶

• Defined in [RFC4884]¶

Length: 8 bits¶

• This field represents the length of the ICMP Extension Structure, including all options and optional padding, but excluding the ICMP Extension Header. The length is measured in 4-byte words. Legacy implementations set this field to 0.¶

Checksum: 16 bits¶

• Defined in [RFC4884]¶

The ICMP Extension Structure MUST be zero-padded so that it ends on a 4-byte boundary.¶

4. Backwards Compatibility

Legacy implementations set the length field to 0. When the length field is set to 0, it conveys no information and cannot be used to parse the ICMP packet.¶

In these cases, one of the following statements MUST be true:¶

• The ICMP Extension Structure is the final item in the ICMP packet.¶

• The length of the ICMP Extension Structure can be inferred from other fields in the packet.¶

5. IANA Considerations

This document requires no IANA actions.¶

6. Security Considerations

This document introduces no security vulnerabilities.¶

7. Acknowledgements

Thanks to Tom Herbert for his review and helpful suggestion.¶

8. 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/rfc/rfc2119>.

[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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc8174>.

Authors' Addresses