[IPv6]Re: [ippm] ICMPv6 Loopback Draft - New Version

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tal,


> On 4. Jun 2024, at 09:55, Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 -- [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>