]> HPE

USA rbonica@juniper.net

China Telecom

China hexm4@chinatelecom.cn

ZTE Corporation

China xiao.min2@zte.com.cn

Huawei

Israel tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com

Internet INTAREA Group ICMP The ICMP Extension Structure (RFC4884) does not have a length field. Therefore, unless the length of the Extension Structure can be inferred from other data in the ICMP message, the Extension Structure must be the last item in the ICMP message. This document updates RFC 4884 to define a length field for the ICMP Extension Structure. When length information is provided, receivers can use it to parse ICMP messages. Specifically, receivers can use length information to determine the offset at which the item after the ICMP Extension Structure begins.

Introduction The ICMP Extension Structure does not have a length field. This means it is expected to be the last element of an ICMP message. However, there are cases where additional fields need to be inserted after the ICMP Extension Structure. For example, enhances the PROBE utility by adding a new field to ICMP Extended Echo and ICMP Extended Echo Reply messages. To maintain compatibility with existing PROBE implementations, this new field is placed after the ICMP Extension Structure. Because the ICMP Extension Structure does not have a length field, requires implementations to determine the length of the extension structure from the known message format and the assumption that these packets contain only a single ICMP Extension Object. This special handling for PROBE packets is not ideal. For future use, a mechanism to explicitly specify the extension structure length would be beneficial. This document adds a length field to the ICMP Extension Header. It UPDATES .

Conventions and Definitions 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 BCP14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

The ICMP Extension Structure An ICMP Extension Structure contains exactly one Extension Header followed by one or more objects. The Extension Header format is defined in Section 7 of . This document modifies the Extension Header format by allocating the lower 8 bits of the reserved field for a new length field. depicts the updated Extension Header format.

ICMP Extension Header As Updated By This Document

Version: 4 bits.

• ICMP Extension Header version number. This is version 2 as per .

Reserved (Rsvd): 4 bits

• MUST be set to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver as per .

Length: 8 bits

• This field represents the length of the ICMP Extension Structure, including all options and optional padding, but excluding the ICMP Extension Header. The length is measured in 4-byte words. Legacy implementations set this field to 0 as per section 7 of . Therefore, implementation MUST NOT drop packets if this field is set to 0.

Checksum: 16 bits

• As per , the checksum is the one's complement of the one's complement sum of the data structure, with the checksum field replaced by zero for the purpose of computing the checksum. An all-zero value means that no checksum was transmitted. See Section 5.2 of for a description of how this field is used.

The ICMP Extension Structure MUST be zero-padded so that it ends on a 4-byte boundary. If it does not end on a 4-byte boundary, the receiving node will parse the ICMP message incorrectly and may discard it.

Backwards Compatibility Legacy implementations that do not support the mechanism defined in this document set the length field to zero when sending a packet and ignore the length field in received ICMP messages. Such implementations require one of the following:

• The ICMP Extension Structure MUST be the final item in the ICMP packet.
• The length of the ICMP Extension Structure can be inferred from other fields in the packet (e.g., .

Currently, no mechanisms rely on the ICMP extension structure length field. Should such mechanisms be defined in the future, backward compatibility with legacy implementations should be discussed for each case.

IANA Considerations This document requires no IANA actions.

Security Considerations This document introduces no security vulnerabilities. However, it does inherit security considerations from .

Acknowledgements Thanks to Tom Herbert, Jen Linkova, Erik Vynke and Michael Welzl for their review and helpful suggestions.

References Normative References This document redefines selected ICMP messages to support multi-part operation. A multi-part ICMP message carries all of the information that ICMP messages carried previously, as well as additional information that applications may require. Multi-part messages are supported by an ICMP extension structure. The extension structure is situated at the end of the ICMP message. It includes an extension header followed by one or more extension objects. Each extension object contains an object header and object payload. All object headers share a common format. This document further redefines the above mentioned ICMP messages by specifying a length attribute. All of the currently defined ICMP messages to which an extension structure can be appended include an "original datagram" field. The "original datagram" field contains the initial octets of the datagram that elicited the ICMP error message. Although the original datagram field is of variable length, the ICMP message does not include a field that specifies its length. Therefore, in order to facilitate message parsing, this document allocates eight previously reserved bits to reflect the length of the "original datagram" field. The proposed modifications change the requirements for ICMP compliance. The impact of these changes on compliant implementations is discussed, and new requirements for future implementations are presented. This memo updates RFC 792 and RFC 4443. [STANDARDS-TRACK] In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References Arista Networks Juniper Networks Arista Networks Google Verizon Orange This document describes a network diagnostic tool called PROBE. PROBE is similar to PING in that it can be used to query the status of a probed interface, but it differs from PING in that it does not require bidirectional connectivity between the probing and probed interfaces. Instead, PROBE requires bidirectional connectivity between the probing interface and a proxy interface. The proxy interface can reside on the same node as the probed interface, or it can reside on a node to which the probed interface is directly connected. This document updates RFC 4884 and obsoletes RFC 8335.