<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection-15"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="ICMPv6 Reflection">Internet Control Message Protocol
    (ICMPv6) Reflection</title>

    <author fullname="Tal Mizrahi" initials="T." surname="Mizrahi">
      <organization abbrev="">Huawei</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>25 Matam</street>

          <city>Haifa</city>

          <code>3190501</code>

          <country>Israel</country>
        </postal>

        <email>tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Xiaoming He" initials="X." surname="He">
      <organization>China Telecom</organization>

      <address>
        <email>hexm4@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Tianran Zhou" initials="T." surname="Zhou">
      <organization abbrev="">Huawei</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>156 Beiqing Rd.</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>100095</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>zhoutianran@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ron Bonica" initials="R." surname="Bonica">
      <organization>HPE</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>ronald.bonica@hpe.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Xiao Min" initials="X." surname="Min">
      <organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>

      <address>
        <email>xiao.min2@zte.com.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2025"/>

    <workgroup>6MAN</workgroup>

    <keyword>ICMP</keyword>

    <keyword>ICMPv6</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document describes the ICMPv6 Reflection utility. The ICMPv6
      Reflection utility is a diagnostic tool, similar to Ping and the ICMPv6
      Probe utility. It is similar to Ping and Probe in that it relies on a
      stateless message exchange between a probing node and a probed node. The
      probing node sends a request to the probed node and the probed node
      responds to the request.</t>

      <t>The ICMPv6 Reflection utility differs from Ping and Probe because, in
      the ICMPv6 Reflection utility, the probing node requests a snapshot of
      the message that it sent, as it was when arrived at the probed node. The probed node returns the
      requested snapshot.</t>

      <t>The ICMPv6 Reflection utility is useful because it can allow the user to
      see how the network modified the request as it traveled from the probing
      node to the probed node.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>The ICMPv6 Reflection utility is an IPv6 <xref target="RFC8200"/>
      diagnostic tool. It is similar to Ping <xref target="RFC2151"/> and the
      ICMPv6 Probe  <xref target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/> utility in the following
      respects:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>A probing node sends an ICMPv6 <xref target="RFC4443"/> message
          to a probed node. This ICMP message requests that it
          be reflected back to the probing node.</t>

          <t>The probed node receives the above-mentioned message, encodes it
          into another ICMPv6 message, and sends that ICMPv6
          message back to the probing node.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>For the purposes of this document, the ICMPv6 message that the
      probing node sends is called the "request message" and the ICMPv6
      message that the probed node sends is called the "reply message".</t>

      <t>The reply message includes a copy
      of the request message, starting from its IPv6 header, as it was when it arrived at
      the probed node.</t>

      <t>The ICMPv6 Reflection utility uses the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request
      and Extended Echo Reply message types <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>. Each of these message types
      includes an ICMP Extension Structure <xref target="RFC4884"/>. The ICMP
      Extension Structure includes one or more extension objects. This
      document defines the 'Reflect All' object, which is used for reflecting
      the request message, as it arrived at the probed node.</t>

      <t>The document acknowledges an alternative approach that involves the 
      probing node sending a UDP packet with an unused destination port to the 
      probed node. This causes the probed node to send an ICMPv6 Destination 
      Unreachable message, which includes "as much of invoking packet as 
      possible without the ICMPv6 packet exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU" <xref
      target="RFC4443"/>. Similarly, sending an ICMPv6 echo request to an 
      address beyond the probed node with a TTL that expires on the probed 
      node would result in an ICMPv6 Time Exceeded message along with the 
      invoking packet. However, these approaches use ICMPv6 error processing 
      which may be subject to implementation and policy controls on the probed 
      nodes as well as nodes along the path that may cause the monitoring to 
      fail. The solution specified in this document is purpose-built for 
      providing operators with visibility into whether and how packets are affected 
      along a network path.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Requirement Language">
      <t>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
      <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
      they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="UseCaseSec" title="Use Cases">
      <t>The ICMPv6 Reflection utility can be used to determine how the
      probe message's IPv6 header has changed along its delivery path. For
      example, it can be used to determine the value of the Hop Limit, DSCP and ECN fields
      as received by the probed node. The utility can also be used for 
      determining whether and how on-path nodes have changed the
      Source Address, Destination Address, and Flow Label.</t>

      <t>The ICMPv6 Reflection utility also provides a mechanism by which
      IPv6 extension headers in the request message are reflected back to
      the probing node. For example, this information can be useful
      to the probing node when one of the following mutable IPv6 extension 
      headers is used:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>IPv6 Options for In Situ Operations, Administration, and
          Maintenance (IOAM) <xref target="RFC9486"/></t>

          <t>Inband Flow Analyzer <xref target="I-D.kumar-ippm-ifa"/></t>

          <t>Path Tracing in SRv6 networks <xref
          target="I-D.filsfils-ippm-path-tracing"/></t>
        </list></t>

      <t>These extensions are used to collect information along a packet's
      delivery path, allowing the collected information to be sent to a
      controller for processing. However, the Reflection utility allows 
      this information to be sent back to the probing node.</t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="TheorySec" title="Theory of Operation">
      <t>The probing node sends an ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/> to the probed node. The ICMPv6
      Extended Echo Request message contains an ICMP Extension Structure <xref
      target="RFC4884"/>. The ICMP Extension structure includes an Extension 
      Header and a 'Reflect All' object, which is defined in this document. 
      </t>

      <t>The 'Reflect All' object contains an object payload field 
      whose length SHOULD be sufficient to carry the IPv6 and ICMP header of the
      reflected request message. The length of both the request and 
      reply packets SHOULD NOT exceed the IPv6 minimum MTU defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>,
      to avoid triggering fragmentation.</t>

      <t>If the probed node receives the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request, the probed node formats
      an ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message provided that this action
      aligns with its local policies, such as security policies and rate
      limiting. The total length of the ICMPv6
      Extended Echo Reply message is equal to the total length of the
      corresponding request message, unless the probed node's policy restricts 
      the reply length or the reply size would exceed the MTU,
      in which cases the reply might be shorter.
      The main body of the ICMPv6
      Extended Echo Reply message, as in 
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>, reflects the status of an interface on the
      probed node.</t>

      <t>The ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message also contains an ICMP
      Extension Structure. The ICMP Extension Structure MUST contain the
      'Reflect All' object that the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message
      contained.
      The length of the ICMP Extension Structure in the reply message MUST be 
      less than or equal to the length of the ICMP Extension Structure of the request 
      message. Specifically, the ICMP Extension Structure in the reply
      can be shorter if the probed node's policy 
      restricts the reply length or the reply size would exceed the MTU.
      Similarly, the length of the 'Reflect All' object in the reply message 
      MUST be less than or equal to the length
      of the 'Reflect All' object in the request message.</t>

      <t>An example of a request and a reply is provided in <xref
      target="ReflectionFormats"/>. In this example the request message
      includes the 'Reflect All' object. The reply also includes the 'Reflect
      All' object, containing the IPv6 header, ICMPv6 header and ICMP
      Extension Header of the request message. The request and reply messages
      have the same length. The length of the IPv6 header of the request 
      message is at least 40 octets, depending on whether there are extension 
      headers, followed by an 8-octet ICMPv6 header, a 4-octet ICMP 
      Extension Header, and a 4-octet Object Header. For example,
      if the length of the IPv6 header is H octets,  and the length of the 
      object payload is H+12 octets, the reply includes the reflected 
      request message starting from the IPv6 header and up to and including 
      the ICMP Extension Header, as shown in <xref 
      target="ReflectionFormats"/>.</t>

      <figure align="center" anchor="ReflectionFormats"
              title="ICMPv6 Reflection Message Formats">
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[

       +----------------------------+   +----------------------------+
       |        IPv6 Header         |   |        IPv6 Header         |
       |    and extension headers   |   |    and extension headers   |
       +----------------------------+   +----------------------------+
       |       ICMPv6 Header        |   |       ICMPv6 Header        |
       |   Extended Echo Request    |   |    Extended Echo Reply     |
       +----------------------------+   +----------------------------+
       |   ICMP Extension Header    |   |   ICMP Extension Header    |
       +----------------------------+   +----------------------------+
       |'Reflect All' Object Header |   |'Reflect All' Object Header |
       +----------------------------+   +----------------------------+
       |       Object payload       |   |   Request's IPv6 Header    |
       |  (placeholder for reply)   |   |   and extension headers    |
       |                            |   |  ------------------------  |
       |                            |   |  Request's ICMPv6 Header   |
       |                            |   |   Extended Echo Request    |
       |                            |   |  ------------------------  |
       |                            |   | Request's ICMP Ext. Header |
       +----------------------------+   +----------------------------+

       ^                            ^   ^                            ^
       |                            |   |                            |
       +-- Extended Echo Request ---+   +--- Extended Echo Reply ----+

           ]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>If a node
      that does not support the 'Reflect All' object receives an ICMP Extended
      Echo Request containing this object, the expected behavior according to
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>
      is to respond with an ICMP Echo Reply message
      that includes the "Malformed Query" code in the Code field.</t>

      <t>From an operational perspective, the reflection utility may have 
      various deployment scenarios, depending on where it is deployed and 
      which nodes it intends to probe. For example, an operator may use 
      the reflection utility for probing specific nodes, or might disable 
      or filter reflection in some parts of the network. Regardless of 
      these considerations, network elements MUST NOT modify the Reflect 
      All extension object. This ensures that the reflected information 
      reaches the probing node exactly as sent by the probed node.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="RefEcho" title="New ICMP Extension Object">
      <t>This document defines the 'Reflect All' object.</t>

      <t>An implementation that supports ICMPv6 Reflection MUST support the
      'Reflect All' object.</t>

      <t>In the ICMPv6 Reflection utility, the 'Reflect All' object MUST be
      the only object in the Extension Structure. An ICMPv6 message
      MUST NOT include more than one 'Reflect All' object.</t>

      <t>The structure of the 'Reflect All' object follows the specification
      of ICMP Extension Objects as defined in <xref target="RFC4884"/> and
      MUST include the following fields:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>The Length of the 'Reflect All' object.</t>

          <t>An object class (as specified in <xref target="IANA"/>).</t>

          <t>C-Type as described below.</t>

          <t>An object payload field.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The Length field specifies the number of octets in the object.
      The Length in the 'Reflect All' object of a reply message MUST be equal
      to the Length in the 'Reflect All' object of the respective request 
      message. </t>

      <t>The C-Type value is used for indicating whether the probed node was
      able to process the object. The following C-Type values are
      supported:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>(0) Request</t>

          <t>(1) Reply - No Error</t>

          <t>(2) Reply - Unsupported Object</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The C-Type field of a Reflection object in a request message MUST be
      set to the 'Request' value. If the probed node is able to process the
      'Reflect All' object, it MUST copy the request message starting from 
      the IPv6 header and up to and including the ICMP Extension Header
      into the object
      payload and update the C-Type field to the 'Reply - No Error' value. If
      the probed node is not able to process the object, it MUST update the
      C-Type value of the object in the Extended Echo Reply to 'Reply -
      Unsupported Object'.</t>

      <t>If the 'Reflect All' object is received with an unsupported or an 
      unexpected C-Type value, the message MUST be discarded. For example, 
      if a 'Reflect All' object with a 'Reply - No Error' is received in
      an ICMP Extended Echo Request message, the message is discarded.</t>

      <t>The object payload field in the ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message
      is a placeholder for the corresponding reply message. Its length 
      determines the number of bytes, starting from the beginning of the IPv6
      header, that the probed node includes in the object payload of the 
      reply. The object payload field in a request message contains arbitrary data. In reply 
      messages the object payload field MUST contain the received request 
      message starting from the beginning of the IPv6 header and according 
      to the length of the object payload, provided that the probed node 
      supports the 'Reflect All' object and that responding does not conflict 
      with its security policy.</t>

      <t>If the 'Reflect All' object is sufficiently long, the reply message 
      includes the initial octets of the 'Reflect All' object. A notable use 
      case for including arbitrary data in the object payload is the inclusion 
      of a transmission timestamp, similar to how conventional Ping utilities 
      incorporate timestamps into the ICMP payload. If the initial octets of 
      the 'Reflect All' object payload contain a timestamp and the object is 
      long enough, the timestamp is reflected back to the probing node, 
      enabling round-trip time calculations.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>IANA is requested to allocate the following values in the "ICMP
      Extension Object Classes and Class Sub-types" registry.</t>

      <t>The following Object Class values are defined:</t>

      <figure align="center" anchor="IcmpTypes" title="Object Class Allocation">
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
         
+-------------+------------------+-----------------+  
| Class Value |    Class Name    |     Reference   |  
+-------------+------------------+-----------------+  
|   TBD1      |    Reflect All   | [This document] |  
|             |                  |                 |
+-------------+------------------+-----------------+
  ]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>IANA is requested to create a sub-type registry, "Sub-types - Class TBD1 - Reflect All".
      The following C-Type values are defined for the Reflect All object class.
      Unassigned C-Type values will be assigned on a First Come First Served (FCFS) 
      basis.</t>

      <figure align="center" anchor="SubTypes" title="Sub-types - Class TBD1 - Reflect All">
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
         
+----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+  
| C-Type (Value) |  Description                |     Reference   |  
+----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+  
|  0             |  Request                    | [This document] |  
+----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+  
|  1             |  Reply - No Error           | [This document] |  
+----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+  
|  2             |  Reply - Unsupported Object | [This document] |  
+----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+  
|  3-255         |  Unassigned                 |                 |  
+----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+  
  ]]></artwork>
      </figure>

    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>Since this document uses technologies from <xref target="RFC4443"/>,
      <xref target="RFC4884"/>, and <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>, it inherits security
      considerations from those documents. Specifically, security
      considerations relevant to ICMPv6 also apply
      to the current document. For example, ICMPv6 can be misused to create 
      a covert channel between the probing and probed nodes, a technique 
      commonly known as ICMP tunneling. Another relevant risk is an ICMP 
      Echo Spoofing attack, where an attacker sends ICMP Echo Request 
      messages to a target, forging the source IP address to make the 
      packets appear to originate from a victim host, who subsequently 
      receives the unsolicited ICMP Echo Reply packets. Importantly, this 
      document does not introduce any new security risks in this context 
      compared to other existing ICMP message types.</t>

      <t>It is common practice for network operators to filter (block) or 
      disable support for various ICMPv6 informational and error messages.
      This practice is contingent upon the network's security policy and 
      the location of the nodes. For example, some nodes do not reply to
      ICMPv6 Echo or do not send ICMPv6 Time Exceeded messages (used in
      Traceroute), due to policy considerations that may be related to DoS
      mitigation or to privacy. Network operators SHOULD apply similar
      considerations to ICMPv6 Extended Echo messages when they are used for
      Reflection. For example, an operator can choose to disable support for
      ICMPv6 Reflection in networks or in nodes that do not respond to ICMPv6
      Echo and/or do not generate ICMPv6 Time Exceeded messages.</t>

      <t>The Reflection procedure that is defined in this document is
      symmetric in terms of the length of the request and reply messages. This
      symmetry mitigates the potential for amplification attacks, which would
      be possible if the reply message was longer than the request
      message. Furthermore, as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>,
      the destination address of the Extended Echo Request is always a unicast 
      address, thus mitigating the potential for various DDoS attacks.</t>

      <t>As in other monitoring and measurement mechanisms <xref target="RFC7276"/>, a successful 
      attack on the Reflection utility can create a false illusion of nonexistent issues 
      or prevent the detection of actual ones.
      For instance, a probed node can intentionally misrepresents what it received when
      sending the Reflect All object. A similar effect can be performed by modification of the Reflect All 
      object along the path between the probed node and the probing node.
      </t>

      <t>As specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>, in
      order to protect local resources, implementations SHOULD rate-limit
      incoming ICMP Extended Echo Request messages. Moreover, as per <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>, by default, ICMP Extend Echo
      functionality is disabled.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors gratefully acknowledge Sebastian Moeller, Zafar Ali,
      Bob Hinden, Jen Linkova, Jeremy Duncan, Greg Mirsky, Nick Buraglio,
      Maciej Zenczykowski, Robert Sparks, Thomas Fossati,
      Kyle Rose, Suresh Krishnan, Niclas Comstedt, Mohamed Boucadair, Ketan Talaulikar,
      Deb Cooley, Eric Vyncke, Gorry Fairhurst, Mike Bishop and Roman 
      Danyliw for their insightful comments.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8200'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4443'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4884'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis'?>

    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9486'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.filsfils-ippm-path-tracing'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.kumar-ippm-ifa'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2151'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7276'?>
    </references>

    <section numbered="no" title="Contributors">
      <t>
        <figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[ 
   Shahar Belkar
   Huawei
   8-2 Matam
   Haifa 3190501
   Israel
   Email: shahar.belkar@huawei.com

   
   Chongfeng Xie
   China Telecom
   Email: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn


   Zhenqiang Li
   China Mobile
   Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com


   Justin Iurman
   Universite de Liege
   10, Allee de la decouverte (B28)
   4000 Sart-Tilman
   Belgium
   Email: justin.iurman@uliege.be

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
