Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types
RFC 6918
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(April 2013; No errata)
Obsoletes RFC 1788
Was draft-gp-obsolete-icmp-types-iana (individual in ops area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Fernando Gont , Carlos Pignataro | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6918 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Ron Bonica | ||
| IESG note | Joel Halpern (jmh@joelhalpern.com) is the Docment Shepherd | ||
| Send notices to | jmh@joelhalpern.com | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Gont
Request for Comments: 6918 UTN-FRH / SI6 Networks
Obsoletes: 1788 C. Pignataro
Updates: 792, 950 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track April 2013
ISSN: 2070-1721
Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types
Abstract
A number of ICMPv4 message types have become obsolete in practice,
but have never been formally deprecated. This document deprecates
such ICMPv4 message types, thus cleaning up the corresponding IANA
registry. Additionally, it updates RFC 792 and RFC 950, obsoletes
RFC 1788, and requests the RFC Editor to change the status of RFC
1788 to Historic.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6918.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Gont & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6918 Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages April 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Discussion of Deprecated ICMPv4 Message Types . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Alternate Host Address (Type 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Information Request (Type 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Information Reply (Type 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Address Mask Request (Type 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5. Address Mask Reply (Type 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.6. Traceroute (Type 30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.7. Datagram Conversion Error (Type 31) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.8. Mobile Host Redirect (Type 32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.9. IPv6 Where-Are-You (Type 33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.10. IPv6 I-Am-Here (Type 34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.11. Mobile Registration Request (Type 35) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.12. Mobile Registration Reply (Type 36) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.13. Domain Name Request (Type 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.14. Domain Name Reply (Type 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.15. SKIP (Type 39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Changing the Status of RFC 1788 to Historic . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
A number of ICMPv4 [RFC0792] message types have been specified over
the years. A number of these message types have become obsolete in
practice, but have never been formally deprecated. This document
deprecates such ICMPv4 message types, "cleaning up" the corresponding
IANA registry. Additionally, it updates RFC 792 and RFC 950,
obsoletes RFC 1788, and requests the RFC Editor to change the status
of RFC 1788 to Historic.
Section 2 discusses each of the obsoleted ICMPv4 messages. Section 4
requests the RFC Editor to change the status of RFC 1788 to Historic.
Gont & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6918 Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages April 2013
2. Discussion of Deprecated ICMPv4 Message Types
The following subsections discuss the details of those ICMPv4 message
types being deprecated, based on publicly available information
and/or information provided by the requester of the corresponding
assignment.
2.1. Alternate Host Address (Type 6)
There is no publicly available information about this message type.
2.2. Information Request (Type 15)
This message type is specified in [RFC0792]. However, other
mechanisms (such as DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded this message type
for the purpose of host configuration.
2.3. Information Reply (Type 16)
This message type is specified in [RFC0792]. However, other
mechanisms (such as DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded this message type
for the purpose of host configuration.
2.4. Address Mask Request (Type 17)
This message type is specified in [RFC0950] and was meant to provide
a means to obtain the subnet mask. However, other mechanisms (such
as DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded this message type for the purpose
of host configuration.
2.5. Address Mask Reply (Type 18)
This message type is specified in [RFC0950] and was meant to provide
a means to obtain the subnet mask. However, other mechanisms (such
as DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded this message type for the purpose
of host configuration.
2.6. Traceroute (Type 30)
This message type is specified in [RFC1393] and was meant to provide
an alternative means to discover the path to a destination system.
This message type has never been widely deployed. The status of
[RFC1393] has been changed to Historic by [RFC6814], and the
corresponding option this message type relies on (Traceroute, Type
82) has been formally obsoleted by [RFC6814].
Gont & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6918 Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages April 2013
2.7. Datagram Conversion Error (Type 31)
This message type was originally meant to report conversion errors in
the TP/IX [RFC1475] protocol. However, TP/IX was never widely
implemented or deployed, and the status of [RFC1475] is Historic.
2.8. Mobile Host Redirect (Type 32)
This message type was originally specified as part of an experimental
protocol for IP Mobile Hosts [CMU-MOBILE]. However, it was never
widely implemented or deployed.
2.9. IPv6 Where-Are-You (Type 33)
This message type was originally specified in [SIMPSON-DISCOV] for
the purpose of identification of adjacent IPv6 nodes. It was never
widely deployed or implemented.
2.10. IPv6 I-Am-Here (Type 34)
This message type was originally specified in [SIMPSON-DISCOV] for
the purpose of identification of adjacent IPv6 nodes. It was never
widely deployed or implemented.
2.11. Mobile Registration Request (Type 35)
This message type was originally meant for transparent routing of
IPv6 datagrams to Mobile Nodes [SIMPSON-MOBILITY]. It was never
widely deployed or implemented.
2.12. Mobile Registration Reply (Type 36)
This message type was originally meant for transparent routing of
IPv6 datagrams to Mobile Nodes [SIMPSON-MOBILITY]. It was never
widely deployed or implemented.
2.13. Domain Name Request (Type 37)
This message type was originally specified in [RFC1788] for the
purpose of learning the Fully Qualified Domain Name associated with
an IP address. This message type was never widely deployed or
implemented.
Gont & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 6918 Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages April 2013
2.14. Domain Name Reply (Type 38)
This message type was originally specified in [RFC1788] for the
purpose of learning the Fully Qualified Domain Name associated with
an IP address. This message type was never widely deployed or
implemented.
2.15. SKIP (Type 39)
This message type was originally specified in [SKIP-ADP] for
informing supported capabilities in the SKIP [SKIP] protocol. This
message type was never widely deployed or implemented.
3. IANA Considerations
The "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Parameters" registry
[IANA-ICMP] contains the list of the currently assigned ICMP message
Types.
This document formally deprecates the following ICMP message Types
and requests IANA to mark them as such in the corresponding registry
[IANA-ICMP]:
o Alternate Host Address (Type 6)
o Information Request (Type 15)
o Information Reply (Type 16)
o Address Mask Request (Type 17)
o Address Mask Reply (Type 18)
o Traceroute (Type 30)
o Datagram Conversion Error (Type 31)
o Mobile Host Redirect (Type 32)
o IPv6 Where-Are-You (Type 33)
o IPv6 I-Am-Here (Type 34)
o Mobile Registration Request (Type 35)
o Mobile Registration Reply (Type 36)
o Domain Name Request (Type 37)
Gont & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 6918 Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages April 2013
o Domain Name Reply (Type 38)
o SKIP (Type 39)
The ICMPv4 Source Quench Message (Type 4) has already been
deprecated by [RFC6633].
4. Changing the Status of RFC 1788 to Historic
This document requests the RFC Editor to change the status of
[RFC1788] to Historic.
Both [RFC1385] and [RFC1393] already have a status of Historic.
The status of other RFCs (such as [RFC0792] and [RFC0950]) is not
changed since other parts of these documents are still current.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not modify the security properties of the ICMPv4
message types being deprecated. However, formally deprecating these
message types serves as a basis for, e.g., filtering these packets.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ron Bonica and Joel Halpern for their
guidance.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC6814] Pignataro, C. and F. Gont, "Formally Deprecating Some
IPv4 Options", RFC 6814, November 2012.
7.2. Informative References
[CMU-MOBILE] Johnson, D., "Transparent Internet Routing for IP Mobile
Hosts", Work in Progress, July 1993.
[IANA-ICMP] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMP) Parameters", September 2012,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters>.
[RFC0950] Mogul, J. and J. Postel, "Internet Standard Subnetting
Procedure", STD 5, RFC 950, August 1985.
Gont & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 6918 Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages April 2013
[RFC1385] Wang, Z., "EIP: The Extended Internet Protocol",
RFC 1385, November 1992.
[RFC1393] Malkin, G., "Traceroute Using an IP Option", RFC 1393,
January 1993.
[RFC1475] Ullmann, R., "TP/IX: The Next Internet", RFC 1475,
June 1993.
[RFC1788] Simpson, W., "ICMP Domain Name Messages", RFC 1788,
April 1995.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
RFC 6633, May 2012.
[SIMPSON-DISCOV]
Simpson, W., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery -- ICMP Message
Formats", Work in Progress, January 1995.
[SIMPSON-MOBILITY]
Simpson, W., "IPv6 Mobility Support", Work in Progress,
November 1994.
[SKIP] Aziz, A., Markson, T., and H. Prafullchandra, "Simple
Key-Management For Internet Protocols (SKIP)", Work
in Progress, December 1995.
[SKIP-ADP] Aziz, A., Markson, T., and H. Prafullchandra, "SKIP
Algorithm Discovery Protocol", Work in Progress,
December 1995.
Gont & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 6918 Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages April 2013
Authors' Addresses
Fernando Gont
UTN-FRH / SI6 Networks
Evaristo Carriego 2644
Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
EMail: fgont@si6networks.com
URI: http://www.si6networks.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
Gont & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 8]