Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 June 2023 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C24C14CE4D; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 23:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.com
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 A2qU9-NzBsZL; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 23:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63784C14CE4B; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 23:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-43b4dcd5c22so1014876137.0; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 23:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1686118017; x=1688710017; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=4VzZdD4/VdKAzYBtwZcQSPmYktLgxDC503x+LJ5dOWA=; b=bbpx+8Sr9reoHFAxuvirAZbgJdAqdRvf8zfmvL9flwX5l02ndbK/NpNTZUiJ/6cgAW F6fqjvqBrmTOdhzV2fHrxlxxfE46L0fslPiZJNlOplIsexWOSK541XxbNP1GtovDCMCn lfH6f2+nYXNMVICqROVozBIi84s4OlTFgseT122O+/NVbUS1QzRZgtLgftb1ePtvPDnZ FOrMN/9Cd4ytUV0g4cpTY1NsgIxliegJgGvKSMuRYiE+PGlUn0dp/eYEwzLZyNah1ilm mvO5UGy9kEtH2ezwuUKGy6OuPumNkXCT+ggC6Vj9lKeocIn0AGmebEO7nyiqQROlojOm 5oig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686118017; x=1688710017; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4VzZdD4/VdKAzYBtwZcQSPmYktLgxDC503x+LJ5dOWA=; b=jVusy3w/tYPy5M9zOj+bwGLDXffbNZCBhwqQmlJ5Np/xB9E/EI9P2ulN0s9K7tV2t9 f/R+103ugkaBve8JhL4nGxq4OSHATjAohD4eOUXcGtSLIa+fz4oTtmCz6EHVSIzXSxdW +mDpvhA1J8H7SekBcIaUIIvXAP2jyEior1D/p/LZnbX+pNpjVgJfvczdd3BgU3wFDJEd qva6hQHKtuW1F2It2INglB/UyB/C6xvk+n+rniRfKzAADEGbVD/rEDkYcnrhg7mItQA5 SEfcmGYBXDJvIWgVWmDDK6z+rtJ6tWP1QMEEdtUQD18UlCEVZsrwyq7khy4vLuRs0NWK XUnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwOQ847LKbeWKCSM2M5F8c2JNmRryxaIxglpyOtNCjL1O2KlYyF leAABtZl7Uj1YXYBlVpNmbUnkzzE6oDlFroGvNw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6bMY/NVf6Cj6rxnf8VCRutqHVQ5aCQCYZRI6vM1cXs8DVe7Q0ZExT8qTcDmy71jbTk17G9uAb72dc1SywRjyo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:1da:b0:43b:43de:ca38 with SMTP id s26-20020a05610201da00b0043b43deca38mr619281vsq.26.1686118016936; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 23:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABUE3Xm5nT4R8wUu6FfXW0u66YoyDS45cRTuiGjRJ0CRGsevnQ@mail.gmail.com> <908A768F-F9CF-468A-A7C1-27736FE10BFE@gmail.com> <5B0C59DC-BD03-4BEE-A719-6E892F61F916@cisco.com> <CABUE3Xk--WodVbGFQtJvPTdtH154bNE6nufxoFDJuh6nVbpFRg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3Xk--WodVbGFQtJvPTdtH154bNE6nufxoFDJuh6nVbpFRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2023 23:06:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriWBzdTqo2Dqz=icOxO3nB=Ax=RLaPefUocRLuC+in5xnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Cc: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ckkN0x6Cgi9Py-LagQaf9whrlko>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 06:07:02 -0000

Poking around the Linux kernel source, my reading of net/ipv6/icmp.c's
icmpv6_rcv() is that it checks the type byte before dispatching to
icmpv6_echo_reply(), and inside icmpv6_echo_reply() I'm not seeing any
checking of the code byte, so I'd assume (without testing) that it
just constructs a normal echo reply.  I also suspect that it just
copies the incoming code value into the reply.

The only differentiation I see being made is between echo request
(4443) and extended echo request (8335).

Should be easy enough to test (after I get a few other things done).

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 9:30 PM Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bob, Eric,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
> Defining a new code for ICMPv6 Echo rather than defining a new type
> may be the right way to go.
> Our main concern with this is that RFC 4443 defines what to do with an
> unknown type, but does not define what to do with an unknown code. It
> is not clear what existing implementations do when receiving an Echo
> Request with an unknown code. That is why the current draft calls for
> a new type. However, we are open to more feedback about this, and it
> may end up being just a new code.
>
> Cheers,
> Tal.
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:33 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > Without any hat, I agree with Bob.
> >
> > This I-D should eventually go to 6MAN WG though (with my AD hat)
> >
> > -éric
> >
> > On 06/06/2023, 08:34, "Int-area on behalf of Bob Hinden" <int-area-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of bob.hinden@gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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 <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com <mailto:tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > New draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcb-intarea-icmpv6-loopback/ <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
> > > Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------