Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback
Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com> Wed, 07 June 2023 11:42 UTC
Return-Path: <luigi.iannone@huawei.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 AD564C151533; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 04:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 BXPotsOy6hzd; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 04:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CBACC151097; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 04:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4QblnQ1RZKz6J7wf; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 19:42:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.78) by lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:42:38 +0100
Received: from lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com ([7.191.160.78]) by lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com ([7.191.160.78]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.023; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:42:38 +0100
From: Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com>
To: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] [IPv6] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback
Thread-Index: AQHZmQaRlR03S7kJDEiA9EDW87w/B69/ImgAgAAU08A=
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 11:42:37 +0000
Message-ID: <43895c6986924e239266ed0ffc55177a@huawei.com>
References: <CABUE3Xm5nT4R8wUu6FfXW0u66YoyDS45cRTuiGjRJ0CRGsevnQ@mail.gmail.com> <908A768F-F9CF-468A-A7C1-27736FE10BFE@gmail.com> <5B0C59DC-BD03-4BEE-A719-6E892F61F916@cisco.com> <CABUE3Xk--WodVbGFQtJvPTdtH154bNE6nufxoFDJuh6nVbpFRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriWBzdTqo2Dqz=icOxO3nB=Ax=RLaPefUocRLuC+in5xnA@mail.gmail.com> <da65dbbe-e46d-b514-50b1-280dec3ace9c@uliege.be>
In-Reply-To: <da65dbbe-e46d-b514-50b1-280dec3ace9c@uliege.be>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.206.215.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jqTm1Pu9oYK-WXFUJrkONCw5W_Y>
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 11:42:44 -0000
For FreeBSD it looks like code MUST be 0 or the packet is dropped: (file netinet6/icmp6.c line 550: http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/netinet6/icmp6.c#L550) case ICMP6_ECHO_REQUEST: icmp6_ifstat_inc(ifp, ifs6_in_echo); if (code != 0) goto badcode; Ciao L. > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area <int-area-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Justin Iurman > Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2023 13:24 > To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>; Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Int-area] [IPv6] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback > > On 6/7/23 08:06, Erik Kline wrote: > > 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). > > +1 ... tested and confirmed (pcap attached, code 0 for packets 1-2, code > 1 for packets 3-4). > > Cheers, > Justin > > > 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 > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Erik Kline
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Justin Iurman
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Luigi IANNONE
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Florian Obser
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] New Draft - … Robinson, Herbie
- Re: [IPv6] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] New Draft - … Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Michael Richardson
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Tianran Zhou
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Michael Richardson
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [IPv6] [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback waldemar