Internet                                                       R. Bonica
Internet-Draft                                                    D. Gan
Intended status: Informational                          Juniper Networks
Expires: March 30, 2007                                      P. Nikander
                                           Ericsson Research Nomadic Lab
                                                               D. Tappan
                                                            C. Pignataro
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                      September 26, 2006


             Modifying ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages
                     draft-bonica-internet-icmp-09

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 30, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document redefines selected ICMP messages to support multi-part
   operation.  A multi-part ICMP message carries all of the information
   that ICMP messages carried previously, as well as additional



Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


   information that applications may require.

   Multi-part messages are supported by an ICMP extension structure.
   The extension structure is situated at the end of the ICMP message.
   It includes an extension header followed by one or more extension
   objects.  Each extension object contains an object header and object
   payload.  All object headers share a common format.

   This document further redefines a subset of the above mentioned ICMP
   messages by specifying a length attribute.  Many of the ICMP messages
   to which an extension structure can be appended include an "original
   datagram" field.  The "original datagram" field contains the initial
   octets of the datagram to which the ICMP message is a response.
   Although the original datagram field is of variable length, the ICMP
   message does not include a field that specifies its length.
   Therefore, in order to facilitate message parsing, this draft
   allocates eight previously reserved bits to reflect the length of the
   "original datagram" field.

   The proposed modifications change the requirements for ICMP
   compliance.  The impact of these changes on compliant implementations
   is discussed, and new requirements for future implementations are
   presented.




























Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Conventions Used In This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Summary of Changes to ICMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  ICMP Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  ICMPv4 Destination Unreachable . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  ICMPv4 Time Exceeded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  ICMPv4 Parameter Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.4.  ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.5.  ICMPv6 Time Exceeded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.6.  ICMP Messages That Can Be Extended . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Backwards Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.1.  Classic Application Receives ICMP Message With
           Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  Non-compliant Application Receives ICMP Message With
           No Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.3.  Non-compliant Application Receives ICMP Message With
           Compliant Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.4.  Compliant Application Receives ICMP Message with No
           Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.5.  Compliant Application Receives ICMP Message with
           Non-compliant Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  The ICMP Extension Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  ICMP Extension Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19


















Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


1.   Conventions Used In This Document

   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 RFC2119 [1].


2.  Introduction

   This document redefines selected ICMPv4 [2] and ICMPv6 [3] messages
   to include an extension structure and a length attribute.  The
   extension structure supports multi-part ICMP operation.  Protocol
   designers can make an ICMP message carry additional information by
   encoding that information in an extension object.

   This document also addresses a fundamental problem in ICMP
   extensibility.  Many of the ICMP messages addressed by this memo
   include an "original datagram" field.  The "original datagram" field
   contains the initial octets of the datagram to which the ICMP message
   is a response.  Although the "original datagram" field is of variable
   length, the ICMP message does not include a field that specifies its
   length.

   Application software infers the length of the "original datagram"
   field from the total length of the ICMP message.  If an extension
   structure were appended to the message without adding a length
   attribute for the "original datagram" field, the message would become
   unparsable.  Specifically, application software would not be able to
   determine where the "original datagram" field ends and where the
   extension structure begins.  Therefore, this document proposes a
   length attribute as well as an extension structure that is appended
   to the ICMP message.

   The current memo also addresses backwards compatibility with existing
   ICMP implementations that either do not implement the extensions
   defined herein or implement them without adding the required length
   attributes.  In particular, this draft addresses backwards
   compatibility with certain, widely deployed, MPLS-aware ICMPv4
   implementations that send the extensions defined herein without
   adding the required length attribute.

   The current memo does not define any ICMP extension objects.  It
   defines only the extension header and a common header that all
   extension objects share.  Reference [6] and reference [7] provide
   sample applications of the ICMP Extension Object.






Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


3.  Summary of Changes to ICMP

   The following is a summary of changes to ICMP that are proposed by
   this memo:

      An ICMP Extension Structure MAY be appended to ICMPv4 Destination
      Unreachable, Time Exceeded, and Parameter Problem messages.

      An ICMP Extension Structure MAY be appended to ICMPv6 Destination
      Unreachable, and Time Exceeded messages.

      The above mentioned messages include an "original datagram" field,
      and the message formats are updated to specify a length attribute
      for the "original datagram" field.

      The "original datagram" field MUST include at least 128 octets.
      If the original datagram did not contain 128 octets, the "original
      datagram" field MUST be zero padded to 128 octets.

      The "original datagram" field MUST be zero padded to the nearest
      32-bit boundary.


4.  ICMP Extensibility

   RFC 792 defines the following ICMPv4 message types:

      - Destination Unreachable

      - Time Exceeded

      - Parameter Problem

      - Source Quench

      - Redirect

      - Echo Request/Reply

      - Timestamp/Timestamp Reply

      - Information Request/Information Reply

   RFC 1191 [4] adds a "Next-Hop MTU" field to the Destination
   Unreachable message.

   RFC 4443 defines the following ICMPv6 message types:




Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


      - Destination Unreachable

      - Packet Too Big

      - Time Exceeded

      - Parameter Problem

      - Echo Request/Reply

   Many ICMP messages are extensible as currently defined.  Protocol
   designers can extend ICMP messages by simply appending fields or data
   structures to them.

   Many ICMP messages are not extensible as currently defined.  These
   messages contain an "original datagram" field which represents the
   leading octets of the datagram to which the ICMP message is a
   response.  RFC 792 defines the "original datagram" field for ICMPv4
   messages.  In RFC 792, the "original datagram" field includes the IP
   header plus the next eight octets of the original datagram.  RFC 1812
   [5] extends the "original datagram" field to contain as many octets
   as possible without causing the ICMP message to exceed the minimum
   IPv4 MTU (i.e., 576 octets).  RFC 4443 defines the "original
   datagram" field for ICMPv6 messages.  In RFC 4443, the "original
   datagram" field always contained as many octets as possible without
   causing the ICMP message to exceed the minimum IPv6 MTU (i.e., 1280
   octets).

   Unfortunately, the "original datagram" field lacks a length
   attribute.  Application software infers the length of this field from
   the total length of the ICMP message.  If an extension structure were
   appended to the message without adding a length attribute for the
   "original datagram" field, the message would become unparsable.
   Specifically, application software would not be able to determine
   where the "original datagram" field ends and where the extension
   structure begins.

   In order to solve this problem, this memo introduces an 8-bit length
   attribute to the following ICMPv4 messages.

      - Destination Unreachable

      - Time Exceeded

      - Parameter Problem

   It also introduces an 9-bit length attribute to the following ICMPv6
   messages.



Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


      - Destination Unreachable

      - Time Exceeded

   The length attribute MUST be specified when the ICMP Extension
   Structure is appended to the above mentioned ICMP messages.

   The length attribute represents the length of the "original datagram"
   field, measured in 32-bit words.  When the length attribute is
   specified, the "original datagram" field MUST be zero padded to the
   nearest 32-bit boundary.  Space for the length attribute is claimed
   from reserved octets, whose value was previously required to be zero.
   Because the sixth octet of each of the impacted ICMPv4 messages was
   reserved for future use, this octet was selected as the location of
   the length attribute in ICMPv4.  Likewise, because the seventh and
   eighth octets of each of the impacted ICMPv6 messages were reserved
   for future use, these octets were selected as the location of the
   length attribute in ICMPv6.

   In order the achieve backwards compatibility, when the ICMP Extension
   Structure is appended to an ICMP message and that ICMP message
   contains an "original datagram" field, the "original datagram" field
   MUST contain at least 128 octets.  If the original datagram did not
   contain 128 octets, the "original datagram" field MUST be zero padded
   to 128 octets.  (See Section 5.1 for rationale.)

   The following sub-sections depict length attribute as it has been
   introduced to selected ICMP messages.

4.1.  ICMPv4 Destination Unreachable

   Figure 1 depicts the ICMPv4 Destination Unreachable 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             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     unused    |    Length     |         Next-Hop MTU          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Internet Header + leading octets of original datagram    |
      |                                                               |
      |                           //                                  |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


                 Figure 1: ICMPv4 Destination Unreachable

   The syntax and semantics of all fields are unchanged from RFC 792.
   However, a length attribute is added to the second word.  The length
   attribute represents length of the padded "original datagram" field,
   measured in 32-bit words.

4.2.  ICMPv4 Time Exceeded

   Figure 2 depicts the ICMPv4 Time Exceeded 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             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     unused    |    Length     |          unused               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Internet Header + leading octets of original datagram    |
      |                                                               |
      |                           //                                  |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 2: ICMPv4 Time Exceeded

   The syntax and semantics of all fields are unchanged from RFC 792,
   except for a length attribute which is added to the second word.  The
   length attribute represents length of the padded "original datagram"
   field, measured in 32-bit words.

4.3.  ICMPv4 Parameter Problem

   Figure 3 depicts the ICMPv4 Parameter Problem Message.















Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


       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             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Pointer    |    Length     |          unused               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Internet Header + leading octets of original datagram    |
      |                                                               |
      |                           //                                  |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 3: ICMPv4 Parameter Problem

   The syntax and semantics of all fields are unchanged from RFC 792,
   except for a length attribute which is added to the second word.  The
   length attribute represents length of the padded "original datagram"
   field, measured in 32-bit words.

4.4.  ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable

   Figure 4 depicts the ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable 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             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Unused                    |    Length       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    As much of invoking packet                 |
      +                as will fit without the ICMPv6 packet          +
      |                exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU [IPv6]          |

                 Figure 4: ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable

   The syntax and semantics of all fields are unchanged from RFC 4443.
   However, a length attribute is added to the second word.  The length
   attribute represents length of the padded "original datagram" field,
   measured in 32-bit words.

4.5.  ICMPv6 Time Exceeded

   Figure 5 depicts the ICMPv6 Time Exceeded Message.




Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


          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             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Unused                    |    Length       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    As much of invoking packet                 |
      +                as will fit without the ICMPv6 packet          +
      |                exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU [IPv6]          |

                      Figure 5: ICMPv6 Time Exceeded

   The syntax and semantics of all fields are unchanged from RFC 4443,
   except for a length attribute which is added to the second word.  The
   length attribute represents length of the padded "original datagram"
   field, measured in 32-bit words.

4.6.  ICMP Messages That Can Be Extended

   The ICMP Extension Structure MAY be appended to messages of the
   following types:

      - ICMPv4 Destination Unreachable

      - ICMPv4 Time Exceeded

      - ICMPv4 Parameter Problem

      - ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable

      - ICMPv6 Time Exceeded

   The ICMP Extension Structure MUST NOT be appended to any of the other
   ICMP messages mentioned in Section 4.

   ICMP messages defined in the future SHOULD indicate whether or not
   they support the extension mechanism defined in this specification.
   It is recommended that all new messages support extensions.


5.  Backwards Compatibility

   ICMP messages can be categorized as follows:







Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


      - Messages that do not include any ICMP extensions

      - Messages that include non-compliant ICMP extensions

      - Messages that includes compliant ICMP extensions

   Any ICMP implementation can send a message that does not include
   extensions.  ICMP implementations produced prior to 1999 are not
   known to send ICMP extensions.

   Some ICMP implementations, produced between 1999 and the present, may
   send a non-compliant version of ICMP extensions described in this
   memo.  Specifically, these implementations may append the ICMP
   Extension Structure to the Time Exceeded and Destination Unreachable
   messages.  When they do this, they send exactly 128 octets
   representing the original datagram, zero padding if required.  They
   also calculate checksums as described in this document.  However,
   they do not specify a length attribute to be associated with the
   "original datagram" field.

   It is assumed that ICMP implementations produced in the future will
   send ICMP extensions that are compliant with this specification.

   Likewise, applications that consume ICMP messages can be categorized
   as follows:

      - Classic applications

      - Non-compliant applications

      - Compliant applications

   Classic applications do not parse extensions defined in this memo.
   They are insensitive to the length attribute that is associated with
   the "original datagram" field.

   Non-compliant implementations parse the extensions defined in this
   memo, but only in conjunction with the Time Expired and Destination
   Unreachable messages.  They require the "original datagram" field to
   contain exactly 128 octets and are insensitive to the length
   attribute that is associated with the "original datagram" field.
   Non-compliant applications were produced between 1999 and the
   present.

   Compliant applications comply fully with the specifications of this
   document.

   In order to demonstrate backwards compatibility, Table 1 describes



Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


   how members of each application category would parse each category of
   ICMP message.

   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
   |                |  No Extensions |  Non-compliant |    Compliant   |
   |                |                |   Extensions   |   Extensions   |
   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
   | Classic        |        -       |   Section 5.1  |   Section 5.1  |
   | Application    |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   | Non-compliant  |   Section 5.2  |        -       |   Section 5.3  |
   | Application    |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   | Compliant      |   Section 5.4  |   Section 5.5  |        -       |
   | Application    |                |                |                |
   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

                                  Table 1

   In the table above, cells that contain a dash represent the nominal
   case and require no explanation.  In the following sections, we
   assume that the ICMP message type is "Time Exceeded".

5.1.  Classic Application Receives ICMP Message With Extensions

   When a classic application receives an ICMP message that includes
   extensions, it will incorrectly interpret those extensions as being
   part of the "original datagram" field.  Fortunately, the extensions
   are guaranteed to begin at least 128 octets beyond the beginning of
   the "original datagram" field.  So, only those ICMP applications that
   process the 129th octet of the "original datagram" field will be
   adversely effected.  To date, no such applications have been
   identified.

5.2.  Non-compliant Application Receives ICMP Message With No Extensions

   When a non-compliant ICMPv4 application receives a message that
   contains no extensions, the application examines the total length of
   the ICMPv4 message.  If the total ICMPv4 message length is less than
   the length of its IP header plus 144 octets, the application
   correctly determines that the message does not contain any
   extensions.

   The 144 octet sum is derived from 8 octets for the first two words of
   the ICMPv4 Time Exceeded message, 128 octets for the "original
   datagram" field, 4 octets for the ICMP Extension Header and 4 octets
   for a single ICMP Object header.  All of these octets would be
   required if extensions were present.



Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


   If the ICMPv4 payload contains 144 octets or more, the application
   must examine the 137th octet to determine whether it represents a
   valid ICMPv4 Extension Header.  In order to represent a valid
   Extension Header, it must contain a valid version number and
   checksum.  If it does not contain a valid version number and
   checksum, the application correctly determines that the message does
   not contain any extensions.

   Non-compliant applications assume that the ICMPv4 Extension Structure
   begins on the 137th octet of the Time Exceeded message, after a 128
   octet field representing the padded "original datagram" message.

   It is possible that a non-compliant application will parse an ICMPv4
   message incorrectly under the following conditions:

      - the message does not contain extensions

      - the original datagram field contains 144 octets or more

      - selected octets of the original datagram field represent the
      correct values for an extension header version number and checksum

   Although this is possible, it is very unlikely.

   A similar analysis can be performed for ICMPv6.  However, the numeric
   constants would change as appropriate.

5.3.  Non-compliant Application Receives ICMP Message With Compliant
      Extensions

   When a non-compliant application receives a message that contains
   compliant ICMP extensions, it will parse those extensions correctly
   only if the "original datagram" field contains exactly 128 octets.
   This is because non-compliant applications are insensitive to the
   length attribute that is associated with the "original datagram"
   field.  (They assume its value to be 128.)

   Provided that the entire ICMP messages does not exceed the minimum
   reassembly buffer size (576 octets for ICMPv4 or 1280 octets for
   ICMPv6), there is no upper limit upon the length of the "original
   datagram" field.  However, each vendor will decide how many octets to
   include.  Those wishing to be backward compatible with non-compliant
   TRACEROUTE implementations will include exactly 128 octets.  Those
   not requiring compatibility with non-compliant TRACEROUTE
   applications may include more octets.






Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


5.4.  Compliant Application Receives ICMP Message with No Extensions

   When a compliant application receives an ICMP message, it examines
   the length attribute that is associated with the "original datagram"
   field.  If the length attribute is zero, the compliant application
   MUST determine that the message contains no extensions.

5.5.  Compliant Application Receives ICMP Message with Non-compliant
      Extensions

   When a compliant application receives an ICMP message, it examines
   the length attribute that is associated with the "original datagram"
   field.  If the length attribute is zero, the compliant application
   MUST determine that the message contains no extensions.  In this
   case, that determination is technically correct, but not backwards
   compatible with the non-compliant implementation that originated the
   ICMP message.

   So, to ease transition yet encourage compliant implementation,
   compliant TRACEROUTE implementations MAY include a non-default
   operation mode to also interpret non-compliant responses.
   Specifically, when a TRACEROUTE application operating in non-
   compliant mode receives a sufficiently long ICMP message that does
   not specify a length attribute, it will parse for a valid extension
   header at a fixed location, assuming a 128 octet "original datagram"
   field.  If the application detects a valid version and checksum, it
   will treat the following octets as an extension structure.


6.  The ICMP Extension Structure

   This memo proposes an optional ICMP Extension Structure that can be
   appended to the ICMP messages referenced in Section 4.6 of this
   document.

   The Extension Structure contains exactly one Extension Header
   followed by one or more objects.  Having received an ICMP message
   with extensions, application software MAY process selected objects
   while ignoring others.  The presence of an unrecognized object does
   not imply that an ICMP message is malformed.

   As stated above, the total length of the ICMP message, including
   extensions, MUST NOT exceed the minimum reassembly buffer size.
   Figure 6 depicts the ICMP Extension Header.







Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


       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|      (Reserved)       |           Checksum            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 6: ICMP Extension Header

   The fields of the ICMP Extension Header are as follows:

   Version: 4 bits

      ICMP extension version number.  This is version 2.

   Reserved: 12 bits

      Must be set to 0.

   Checksum: 16 bits

      The one's complement of the one's complement sum of the data
      structure, with the checksum field replaced by zero for the
      purpose of computing the checksum.  An all-zero value means that
      no checksum was transmitted.  See Section 5.2 for a description of
      how this field is used.


7.  ICMP Extension Objects

   Each extension object contains one or more 32-bit words, representing
   an object header and payload.  All object headers share a common
   format.  Figure 7 depicts the Object Header and payload.


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   // (Object payload) //                      |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 7: Object Header and Payload

   An object header has the following fields:




Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


   Length: 16 bits

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

   Class-Num: 8 bits

      Identifies object class.

   C-Type: 8 bits

      Identifies object sub-type.


8.  Security Considerations

   Upon receipt of an ICMP message, application software must check it
   for syntactic correctness.  The extension checksum must be verified.
   Improperly specified length attributes and other syntax problems may
   result in buffer overruns.

   This memo does not define the conditions under which a router sends
   an ICMP message.  Therefore, it does not expose routers to any new
   denial of service attacks.  Routers may need to limit the rate at
   which ICMP messages are sent.


9.  IANA Considerations

   The ICMP Extension Object header contains two 8-bit fields: The
   Class-Num identifies the object class, and the C-Type identifies the
   class sub-type.  Sub-type values are defined relative to a specific
   object class value, and are defined per-class.

   IANA should establish a registry of ICMP extension objects classes
   and class sub-types.  There are no values assigned within this
   document to maintain.  Object classes 0xF7 - 0xFF are reserved for
   private use.  Object class values are assignable on a first-come-
   first-serve.  The policy for assigning sub-type values should be
   defined in the document defining new class values.


10.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Joe Touch and Fernando Gont for their comments regarding
   this draft.





Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792,
        September 1981.

   [3]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message
        Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
        Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [4]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
        November 1990.

   [5]  Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812,
        June 1995.

11.2.  Informative References

   [6]  Atlas, A., "ICMP Extensions for Unnumbered Interfaces",
        draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-01 (work in progress), March 2006.

   [7]  Bonica, R., "ICMP Extensions for MultiProtocol Label Switching",
        draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-05 (work in progress), March 2006.


Authors' Addresses

   Ronald P. Bonica
   Juniper Networks
   2251 Corporate Park Drive
   Herndon, VA  20171
   US

   Email: rbonica@juniper.net


   Der-Hwa Gan
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: dhg@juniper.net




Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


   Pekka Nikander
   Ericsson Research Nomadic Lab
   JORVAS  FIN-02420
   Finland

   Email: pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com


   Daniel C. Tappan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA  01824
   US

   Email: tappan@cisco.com


   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, N.C.  27709
   US

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com



























Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          Multi-part ICMP Messages          September 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Bonica, et al.           Expires March 30, 2007                [Page 19]