Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-04.txt

Naiming Shen <naiming@cisco.com> Fri, 09 March 2012 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <naiming@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D50021F859F for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:04:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.718, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WVyT7dswu8r9 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:04:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4147A21F8592 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:04:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=naiming@cisco.com; l=4355; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331262249; x=1332471849; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=rAmyA86ZVt0f85YWs3D+N0GvRJ/ADaf7i33Rh3mUkcE=; b=LnMkLjhD+Kx2EgttV+jbPwmr1jEnCHkXOqwQjqXDlBAoOmfEHH85j5BC 9SxTaPiyCSwqmhXgCqve4UMWNwzmQa2LBBUerfsuHTE9FkK/6U4eVMEE4 PPD+1F4ttfqlTEOr6SQ+sqi+yS1TIs+ZPQ6am7rdDPbAXDB2ihutr8C6E k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,555,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="35262931"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2012 03:04:09 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn2-49.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-49.cisco.com [10.21.112.49]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q293488Z029305; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 03:04:08 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Naiming Shen <naiming@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F594A63.1060506@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:04:08 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F06A352-AE71-4DFB-8B19-2DA80076406F@cisco.com>
References: <20120227213938.20370.68711.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9C0C873C-D52F-4EC8-939C-FD2373FDC9ED@cisco.com> <709D93F8-C6C0-4F7D-A823-35540D683EE6@netapp.com> <4705AE0F-CAE1-46D9-84D5-AF6D11BD35BC@cisco.com> <2C2F2761-E2BD-4E55-97F3-4E5B3155A3BB@netapp.com> <CFF1327F-D62D-4DDD-9382-7D083DBB6E65@cisco.com> <4F580B97.1070401@isi.edu> <3E7B0D03-60CF-4711-8CEC-A6DC887C2675@cisco.com> <4F594A63.1060506@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-04.txt
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 03:04:10 -0000

Ok, if IANA does not reserve non-"port" items, we'll remove this from the IANA consideration
section then. By legacy I only meant the default or everyday usage of traceroute or ping.

thanks for the note.

- Naiming

On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Joe Touch wrote:

> I remain confused.
> 
> ICMP doesn't use ports; it uses IDs, and the ID space is not registered by IANA, so there's no meaning to a reserved ICMP echo ID value.
> 
> As I noted, there is a specific value - not legacy, but current utility - in sending TCP or UDP packets to specific ports to test reachability.
> 
> I don't see any value in reserving a port here.
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 3/8/2012 4:04 PM, Naiming Shen wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Joe,
>> 
>> some replies inline,
>> 
>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, all,
>>> 
>>> On 3/5/2012 11:46 PM, Naiming Shen wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> The previous version of this draft didn't have this well-known port defined, and we got
>>>> many comments on how to distinguish the packets with new features from the general
>>>> traceroute/ping packets on the Internet, as you mentioned below, it needs more deeper
>>>> packet inspection. With this well-known port, a provider's internal use of certain feature with
>>>> this extension can be more easily sort out from normal trace/ping packets (before the deeper
>>>> packet inspection).
>>> 
>>> A ping (ICMP echo request) message has no port. It has an Identifier field that is used "like a port in TCP or UDP to identify a session" [RFC792], but it identifies a session not a protocol. I.e., it should change for subsequent echo requests, so this should not be fixed at a specific value.
>> 
>> Actually the current implementations I have looked, this ID of ICMP echo request
>> is used to identify a ping process in a multi-threaded system such as linux/bsd. It
>> is fixed during the session, which the "Sequence number" field changes with each
>> packet. In this draft, we suggest if the implementation uses this fixed ID in the
>> ICMP echo-request, the multi-thread process-id information can be moved to the
>> firest 64 octets, which is reserved for private use.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Traceroute uses ICMP with varying TTLs, so a port number is equally meaningless there.
>> 
>> For traceroute application, it's the same usage for the ID field as above.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Sec 5 of this doc redefines how ping works - when it reaches the valid destination, an echo response is sent back. That's how ping knows it works, and how traceroute knows to stop.
>> 
>> That is true. But for udp traceroute stops or udp ping reaches the destination,
>> it uses the property of either the destination port is not open, or the port is open
>> but the source address of the udp packet does not match with any of the socket.
>> Here in this draft is a little different, the port is a well-known, and is intended to
>> receive this ping or traceroute packet, thus we just emphasis that so there is no
>> confusion.
>> 
>>> 
>>> If you intend on using these inside UDP or TCP segments, you need to be much more specific about what you mean by 'traceroute/ping' - notably, citing an RFC or other spec on the variant you're using. However, it would be important to first make the case that this information is relevant for those protocols.
>> 
>> This is only applied to traceroute/ping type of the applications. Although there is no
>> specific RFCs to cover those applications, we can certainly add more text to describe
>> them more clearly.
>> 
>>> 
>>> However, why would you then want to limit those protocols to a specific UDP or TCP port number? their value is in being used to test various port numbers that are blocked (or not) along various paths - e.g., to find out that HTTP isn't blocked all the way to a destination, or if so on what hop.
>> 
>> It's just an option offered by this extension, it's not a must. As mentioned above,
>> this is for providers to distinguish new services using this extension from the trace
>> and ping packets of legacy usage.
>> 
>> thanks.
>> - Naiming
>> 
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>