[ippm] Re: ICMPv6 Loopback Draft - New Version

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Tue, 04 June 2024 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73396C14F5E7; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.846
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmx.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a4ri_vG5dI_N; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BB12C14F610; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1717528282; x=1718133082; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=WQM2utE+Jd22D6sjP/4hOZDlR0g7Z1c+a36rCG5dOEA=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From: In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id: References:To:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from: message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=WSSxVDD/G8PNJ/ZXG1aatJXT6Q+rurMQo3OaEscfHFxmlRpL3wub1z5ORprLdo7t koQJfSMUHlo+t2+S2Qq5NteopbKT1UwVmJQBKiVFXzoWzGOEPIR3VzVHF5RQlFsfX gvPoNEQGkK+nwj7W+Jtk7qP+U/bg9as67Tx1RT7I9b901nz2U3ZnCzHRUYlpP6g7E 7TBBQ3s4bov3uB9z35Xs0CWf13zZcxY58WYpAMySUzbqN/iOC37b0JA1IchoqpSxg WKtcwWYAEv8rTIRjZld8mlNlDmuVIr8aOLDX74UlUxZ5QtubemLGwHwaKFm++UPVh IzpexX/N+pqq8G+Ecw==
X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.8.1.1]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MuUj2-1sVgfw2rb8-00uoKl; Tue, 04 Jun 2024 21:11:22 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3XmD2BhhqTQMQtEwPyFR8FSydZHbkav=ewwKh_zcQv4fMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 21:11:12 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DDCCA6E9-6FEE-4B15-AF02-D9D78653ED68@gmx.de>
References: <CABUE3X=Avf-gOODiQJasC_a1dRuS-+kWO7LeDBZWssi6q9Q8Zg@mail.gmail.com> <9BBED4E5-57B1-41E2-9D27-185DECACCE9D@gmx.de> <CABUE3XmD2BhhqTQMQtEwPyFR8FSydZHbkav=ewwKh_zcQv4fMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:fAGqglJcaDgcF1D3PBFztZF0BUrd58NqxU8hOWrOvQ7vmCCPBlP NV9jPo6cpwJvPfDjExnQagt3Vpoz0EI6JHzxrb1Kxm/S3fTJ2hnjv645RR12f7emq415bhn HwopqoIqQoBzswtC8DRomcuH1TuSbuUvYWs3g9QsCrcRyn33K8VJXq+2UYLZRtjp1o1Bp/R T5GsDdfrCwz6ZQ+3UAFow==
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:X80enW2SdJo=;TYLQNTbUTYFR4ySCzXajArEsOks 3mHOo9YCppc0RCXeprZK2+zwhzqd5eKVbY0rwijLYojkgULkp2l1M0hdFU2owhMI+pLdlV6Fm Tf0kUQ6lKxkPtBZdsIllyTaPTQkxhmt4HZySjeAWxCv3fO3YWfAyprZ73O8Kp4EP3Ame0wwwR q7DUmyXV6XOKrU25mJOXf5b4LmSCsNuY7wuVxlNQrXkwzvTcrIOUTNi4IdXqrAmLhWZt5b9nw f3zEDiNi+3a9L9CztgCKg2Hx67hbdmF1fvT6Jcd8HdTHWITvzStMhOYgTVzKQ7hsgBHf5hftj fXNI32GT4XGVg74A21+OAKa+F3eDDKDSmfTZia2gC+Xlhc7ZmlXiRmsRPRw8dus63nj2YcQ6J Jpd3KfhvUIxNowvsTfDN4X4/R4o4t+kGe0BmmL6DZI4YPHXXEXYs07j+LHFmhETy782uIRQ0r DF5h6Q4E3o62zjLuFhcwmGJFEqGkrAcX6wMx9wLT7P2eStuZx/dCQ40KHsMUuT93XJnUNCdb9 RN2ghHDMbp9sc60FX4B9oo+SWqGVoPQLqFv69WJTJsn/vGplUUUco7VuuqpgbNlxmnzdSc/xM 6CS1PEZxHKPSiTdglV12AdSX71hvPA86dGYlSBl/iz3Y3zLaAFJ8AI/6M60z0hdbz6o4eygZX FbFLUOrwJbubXTWmp3rkOObgT5BDBdJO0SSX0+mk0bDobGWJ+N+8+wUnQ0o06N0gc0woqz2M9 Azr3dcwYXWrb7PoX81VH9hcxCFUk/9YDiRFbYuYGWUEHZCw7MQoypvOXOrWIGZIXhAZX27Z6Y RcJPvh7F/TFJw7zcF+Gu+YbrG8XphCDEOVGnh6CKrNtuI=
Message-ID-Hash: 6IV6URIB3J4NE5RSR7CZ3LUYTT2OXHLD
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6IV6URIB3J4NE5RSR7CZ3LUYTT2OXHLD
X-MailFrom: moeller0@gmx.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ippm.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [ippm] Re: ICMPv6 Loopback Draft - New Version
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Ttb0eRYrVe7zLCETD9F534gli10>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ippm-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ippm-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ippm-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Tal,


> On 4. Jun 2024, at 09:55, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sebastian,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> Regarding IPv4, I believe that technically speaking ICMPv6 Loopback
> could be similarly defined in ICMPv4.

[SM] Great, could this be done i a more generic ICMP Loopback draft, that handles both ICMPv4 and v6?

> However, please note that one of
> the main benefits of ICMPv6 Loopback is that the reply includes the
> IPv6 extensions of the original ICMPv6 request. This would be slightly
> less relevant to IPv4, as IPv4 options are not as commonly used.

[SM] While I have no data or opinion on the relative prevalence of extension header and options for the two IP variants, I do think that on the ICMP side everything that conceptually could work for both, should work for both ;)

I am e.g. still unhappy that ICMPv6 ditched the timestamp requests, sure 1ms granularity is not that great, but to this day plenty of machines will reply in reasonably high frequencies to ICMPv4 timestamp requests allowing to measure how OWD changes between idle and working load.

Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> Cheers,
> Tal.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 10:36 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Tal,
>> 
>> Attraktive feature, offering a better defined alternative to playing TTL games to get some parts of the received forward IP headers back.
>> 
>> quick question, what about IPv4? Given that IPv4 will be with us for the foreseeable future it would be IMHO a good idea trying to keep ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 better aligned. Are there any obvious reasons (factual or procedural) I might be missing why restricting this to ICMPv6 is the best path forward?
>> 
>> Regards
>>        Sebastian
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4. Jun 2024, at 09:26, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We have uploaded a new version of the draft:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mzbc-ippm-transit-measurement-option/
>>> 
>>> This version of the draft addresses the amplification issue that was
>>> raised about previous versions of the draft.
>>> 
>>> Please also note that we have a running demo of a utility called
>>> ioam-ping which uses ICMPv6 Loopback messages:
>>> https://github.com/talmi/IOAM-Ping-Demo
>>> 
>>> Comments will be welcome.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tal.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ippm mailing list -- ippm@ietf.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to ippm-leave@ietf.org
>>