| Internet-Draft | ICMPv6 Loopback | December 2023 |
| Mizrahi, et al. | Expires 9 June 2024 | [Page] |
This document defines ICMPv6 Loopback, which enables a two-way packet exchange that can be used for probing and for diagnostic purposes. ICMPv6 Loopback is similar to ICMPv6 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.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 June 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
ICMPv6 Echo [RFC4443] is very commonly used for diagnostic purposes ("Ping"), and is based on a two-way exchange: Node A sends an Echo Request to Node B, and Node B responds with an Echo Reply to Node A. The data (payload) of the Echo Reply message is identical to the data of the invoking Echo Request message.¶
This document defines ICMPv6 Loopback, using two ICMPv6 message types: Loopback Request and Loopback Reply. The Loopback procedure uses a two-way exchange that is similar to the Echo exchange, with the exception that the payload of the Loopback Reply includes as much of the invoking IPv6 Loopback Request as possible without exceeding the MTU, including IPv6 extension headers if they are present.¶
+----------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
|+ optional extension headers|
+----------------------------+
| ICMPv6 Header |
| Loopback Request |
+----------------------------+
| ICMPv6 Data |
+----------------------------+
^ ^
| |
+-----+ +----- Loopback Request -----+ +-----+
| |-------------------------------------------------->| |
| A | | B |
| |<--------------------------------------------------| |
+-----+ +----- Loopback Reply -----+ +-----+
| |
v v
+----------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
|+ optional extension headers|
+----------------------------+
| ICMPv6 Header |
| Loopback Reply |
+- +----------------------------+
| | IPv6 Header |
| |+ optional extension headers|
Invoking | +----------------------------+
Loopback -+ | ICMPv6 Header |
Request | | Loopback Request |
| +----------------------------+
| | ICMPv6 Data |
+- +----------------------------+
It should be noted that ICMPv6 error messages [RFC4443] already include as much of the IPv6 offending packet as possible. For example, a node that runs Traceroute receives the inoking packets back in the returned Time Exceeded messages. The Loopback messages that are defined in this document enable this information to be returned to the sender without invoking ICMP error messages.¶
ICMPv6 Loopback provides detailed information about the invoking IPv6 packet that is not available in ICMPv6 Echo, including the IPv6 header and extension headers.¶
A related capability was proposed in the context of the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP): the STAMP extension that was proposed in [I-D.wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions] allows a STAMP session-reflector to reflect IPv6 options that were received in test packets from the session-sender. This functionality is performed over STAMP, while the ICMPv6 Loopback functionality is performed in Layer 3, and does not require any parsing or processing beyond Layer 3, namely IPv6 and ICMPv6.¶
There is a number of in-progress drafts in the IETF that define IPv6 extension headers that can be used for tracing the path and its performance, including for example, [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options], [I-D.filsfils-spring-path-tracing], [I-D.ali-spring-ioam-srv6], [I-D.kumar-ippm-ifa]. These extensions are used for collecting information along the path of a packet. The collected information is then exported to a central collector or controller for further processing. However, there is currently no straightforward way of sending such trace information back to the sender, while clearly in some cases this trace information is most relevant to the sender.¶
ICMPv6 Loopback enables collected trace information along with other extension headers to be echoed back to the sender in a strightforward and generic way.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
Abbreviations used in this document:¶
This document defines two new ICMPv6 types: Loopback Request and Loopback Reply.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+-
IPv6 Fields:¶
ICMPv6 Fields:¶
Description¶
A node that implements the ICMPv6 Echo Request and Reply MAY implement an ICMPv6 Loopback responder function that receives Loopback Requests and originates corresponding Loopback Replies. A node MAY also implement an application-layer interface for originating Loopback Requests and receiving Loopback Replies, for diagnostic purposes.¶
Upper Layer Notification¶
Loopback Request messages MAY be passed to processes receiving ICMPv6 messages.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| As much of the invoking IPv6 Loopback Request packet |
+ as possible without the ICMPv6 packet +
| exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU [RFC8200] |
IPv6 Fields:¶
ICMPv6 Fields:¶
Description¶
A node that implements the ICMPv6 Echo Request and Reply MAY implement an ICMPv6 Loopback responder function that receives Loopback Requests and originates corresponding Loopback Replies. A node MAY also implement an application-layer interface for originating Loopback Requests and receiving Loopback Replies, for diagnostic purposes.¶
The source address of a Loopback Reply sent in response to a unicast Loopback Request message MUST be the same as the destination address of that Loopback Request message.¶
A Loopback Reply SHOULD be sent in response to a Loopback Request message sent to an IPv6 multicast or anycast address. In this case, the source address of the reply MUST be a unicast address belonging to the interface on which the Loopback Request message was received.¶
The payload of the ICMPv6 Loopback Reply message, which resides after the Sequence Number field, MUST include as much of the invoking IPv6 Loopback Request packet without exceeding the IPv6 MTU. Note that if the invoking packet includes IPv6 extension headers, they are included in the payload of the Loopback Reply message.¶
Upper Layer Notification¶
Loopback Reply messages MUST be passed to the process that originated a Loopback Request message. A Loopback Reply message MAY be passed to processes that did not originate the Loopback Request message.¶
IANA is requested to allocate the following values in the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters" registry.¶
Two values are to be allocated from the "ICMPv6 type Numbers" range:¶
+-------------+---------------------+---------------------------+ | Type | Name | Reference | +-------------+---------------------+---------------------------+ | TBD-LB-Req | Loopback Request | [This document] | +-------------+---------------------+---------------------------+ | TBD-LB-Rep | Loopback Reply | [This document] | +-------------+---------------------+---------------------------+
The two type values should be allocated from one of the unassigned values greater than 127.¶
IANA is requested to define a code registry for each of the two new types. The registration procedure for these registries are First Come First Served. In each of these new registries, a single code value is assigned by this document: Code 0.¶
From a security perspective this document does not introduce new security threats beyond the threats that are already applicable for existing ICMPv6 messages, and are described in [RFC4443].¶
A ICMPv6 Loopback Reply message may be longer than the invoking Loopback Request message, since the Loopback Reply includes the invoking IPv6 packet, encapsulated in an ICMPv6 over IPv6 packet. Thus, replies are slightly amplified compared to requests. However, the amplification effect is minor, as it only adds a constant number of octets to each invoking packet. Notably, the amplification effect in this case is similar to ICMPv6 error message, and specifically similar to Traceroute.¶
One of the issues that was discussed in the development of this document is whether ICMPv6 Loopback Request and Reply should be identified based on the ICMPv6 type, or based on the code value. The first approach, which is used throughout this document, is to define new type values for Loopback Request and Loopback Reply. The second approach is to reuse the Echo Request and Reply type values, but to define new code values that identify the Loopback messages.¶
Notably, the behavior of ICMPv6 as defined in [RFC4443] is well defined when receiving an unknown type, but the behavior when receiving an unknown code in an Echo message has not been defined. Therefore, this behavior varies between different implementations. For example, in Debian distributions an Echo Reply is sent with the same code that was received in the Echo Request, regardless of whether the code value is known. In FreeBSD, on the other hand, if an Echo Request is received with an unknown code it is ignored. Due to this ambiguity in [RFC4443] it is not possible to use Echo messages with a new code value, since existing implementations may behave in an unpredictable manner.¶
The current document therefore defines new type values for ICMPv6 Loopback messages.¶