Re: [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Tal,

I did a quick read of your draft.

As noted in the draft this seems to be very similar to ICMPv6 Echo/Echo Reply.    The change is to include the request packet in the response, not just the payload.

While I don’t have any real opinion on the need for this, I do think it would be a lot simpler if the draft just defined a new Code field value for Echo Request/Reply that specified this behavior.  Currently the Code field is set to zero, another value could specify this behavior.

Deployment might be easier as I suspect ICMPv6 types other than the current definitions will be filtered in many places.

Bob



> On Jun 6, 2023, at 4:54 AM, Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> New draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcb-intarea-icmpv6-loopback/
> 
> We have posted a new draft that proposes two new ICMPv6 message types:
> Loopback Request and Reply.
> ICMPv6 Loopback is very similar to Echo, except that after a Loopback
> Request is sent, its corresponding Reply includes as much of the IPv6
> Loopback Request packet as possible, including the IPv6 header and
> IPv6 extension headers and options if they are present.
> 
> We believe that ICMPv6 Loopback can be very useful for returning IPv6
> options that were included in Request packet back to the sender,
> including for example sending IOAM [RFC 9197] data from the Request
> back to the sender, sending the SRH [RFC 8754] of the Request back to
> the sender, as well as for in-progress / future protocols such as
> draft-filsfils-spring-path-tracing and draft-kumar-ippm-ifa.
> 
> We would be happy for feedback, as well as suggestions about whether
> the INT-AREA WG is the right place to discuss this draft.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tal.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area