[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-intarea-probe

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]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/