<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.29 (Ruby 3.2.3) -->
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-05" category="std" consensus="true" updates="4884" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.30.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="icmp-eh-len">ICMP Extension Structure Length Field</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-05"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Bonica" fullname="Ron Bonica">
      <organization>HPE</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>rbonica@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="X." surname="He" fullname="Xiaoming He">
      <organization>China Telecom</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>hexm4@chinatelecom.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="X." surname="Min" fullname="Xiao Min">
      <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>xiao.min2@zte.com.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="T." surname="Mizrahi" fullname="Tal Mizrahi">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <country>Israel</country>
        </postal>
        <email>tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2025" month="August" day="05"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>INTAREA Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>ICMP</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 50?>

<t>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.</t>
      <t>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.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 58?>

<section anchor="intro">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The ICMP Extension Structure <xref target="RFC4884"/> 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.</t>
      <t>For example, <xref target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>  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.</t>
      <t>Because the ICMP Extension Structure does not have a length field, 
<xref target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>  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.</t>
      <t>This special handling for PROBE packets is not ideal. For future use, a
mechanism to explicitly specify the extension structure length would be
beneficial.</t>
      <t>This document adds a length field to the ICMP Extension Header. It UPDATES <xref target="RFC4884"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="conventions-and-definitions">
      <name>Conventions and Definitions</name>
      <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      <?line -18?>

</section>
    <section anchor="the-icmp-extension-structure">
      <name>The ICMP Extension Structure</name>
      <t>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 <xref target="RFC4884"/>. This document
modifies the Extension Header format by allocating the lower 8 bits of the reserved field for
a new length field. <xref target="box-fig"/> depicts the updated Extension Header format.</t>
      <figure anchor="box-fig">
        <name>ICMP Extension Header As Updated By This Document</name>
        <artset>
          <artwork type="svg"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" height="128" width="528" viewBox="0 0 528 128" class="diagram" text-anchor="middle" font-family="monospace" font-size="13px" stroke-linecap="round">
              <path d="M 8,64 L 8,96" fill="none" stroke="black"/>
              <path d="M 72,64 L 72,96" fill="none" stroke="black"/>
              <path d="M 136,64 L 136,96" fill="none" stroke="black"/>
              <path d="M 264,64 L 264,96" fill="none" stroke="black"/>
              <path d="M 520,64 L 520,96" fill="none" stroke="black"/>
              <path d="M 8,64 L 520,64" fill="none" stroke="black"/>
              <path d="M 8,96 L 520,96" fill="none" stroke="black"/>
              <g class="text">
                <text x="16" y="36">0</text>
                <text x="176" y="36">1</text>
                <text x="336" y="36">2</text>
                <text x="496" y="36">3</text>
                <text x="16" y="52">0</text>
                <text x="32" y="52">1</text>
                <text x="48" y="52">2</text>
                <text x="64" y="52">3</text>
                <text x="80" y="52">4</text>
                <text x="96" y="52">5</text>
                <text x="112" y="52">6</text>
                <text x="128" y="52">7</text>
                <text x="144" y="52">8</text>
                <text x="160" y="52">9</text>
                <text x="176" y="52">0</text>
                <text x="192" y="52">1</text>
                <text x="208" y="52">2</text>
                <text x="224" y="52">3</text>
                <text x="240" y="52">4</text>
                <text x="256" y="52">5</text>
                <text x="272" y="52">6</text>
                <text x="288" y="52">7</text>
                <text x="304" y="52">8</text>
                <text x="320" y="52">9</text>
                <text x="336" y="52">0</text>
                <text x="352" y="52">1</text>
                <text x="368" y="52">2</text>
                <text x="384" y="52">3</text>
                <text x="400" y="52">4</text>
                <text x="416" y="52">5</text>
                <text x="432" y="52">6</text>
                <text x="448" y="52">7</text>
                <text x="464" y="52">8</text>
                <text x="480" y="52">9</text>
                <text x="496" y="52">0</text>
                <text x="512" y="52">1</text>
                <text x="40" y="84">Version</text>
                <text x="108" y="84">Rsvd</text>
                <text x="204" y="84">Length</text>
                <text x="388" y="84">Checksum</text>
              </g>
            </svg>
          </artwork>
          <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Version|  Rsvd |     Length    |           Checksum            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </artset>
      </figure>
      <t>Version: 4 bits.</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>ICMP Extension Header version number. This is version 2 as per <xref target="RFC4884"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>Reserved (Rsvd): 4 bits</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t><bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0 by the sender and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored by the receiver.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>Length: 8 bits</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>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 <xref target="RFC4884"/>. Therefore, implementation <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> drop packets if this field is set to 0.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>Checksum: 16 bits</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>As per <xref target="RFC4884"/>, 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 <xref target="RFC4884"/> for a description of how this field is used.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The ICMP Extension Structure <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> 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.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="backwards-compatibility">
      <name>Backwards Compatibility</name>
      <t>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.</t>
      <t>Such implementations require one of the following:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>The ICMP Extension Structure <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be the final item in the ICMP packet.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The length of the ICMP Extension Structure can be inferred from other fields in
the packet (e.g., <xref target="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>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.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="updates-to-rfc-4884">
      <name>UPDATES to RFC 4884</name>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>In <xref target="RFC4884"/>, the ICMP Extension Structure was not required to end on a 4-byte boundary. 
In this document,the ICMP Extension Structure <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be zero-padded so that it ends on a 4-byte boundary.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>In <xref target="RFC4884"/>, an ICMP Extension Structure contains exactly one Extension Header followed 
by one or more objects. The Extension Header contained a 12-bit reserved field. This document allocates the lower 8 bits of the reserved field for a new length field.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>In <xref target="RFC4884"/>, the reserved field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0. In this document, the remaining 4 bits of the
reserved field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0 by the sender and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored by the receiver.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>In <xref target="RFC4884"/> the ICMP Extension Structure was expected to be the last data item in an ICMP message. Because
this document adds a length field to the ICMP Extension Header, implementations can parse beyond the ICMP
Extension Structure. Therefore, data items can be added after the ICMP Extension Structure.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document requires no IANA actions.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document introduces no security vulnerabilities. However, it does inherit
security considerations from <xref target="RFC4884"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Thanks to Tom Herbert, Jen Linkova, Erik Vynke and Michael Welzl for their review and helpful suggestions.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC4884">
          <front>
            <title>Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages</title>
            <author fullname="R. Bonica" initials="R." surname="Bonica"/>
            <author fullname="D. Gan" initials="D." surname="Gan"/>
            <author fullname="D. Tappan" initials="D." surname="Tappan"/>
            <author fullname="C. Pignataro" initials="C." surname="Pignataro"/>
            <date month="April" year="2007"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>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.</t>
              <t>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.</t>
              <t>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.</t>
              <t>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.</t>
              <t>This memo updates RFC 792 and RFC 4443. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4884"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4884"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>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.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>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.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis">
          <front>
            <title>PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces</title>
            <author fullname="Bill Fenner" initials="B." surname="Fenner">
              <organization>Arista Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Ron Bonica" initials="R." surname="Bonica">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Reji Thomas" initials="R." surname="Thomas">
              <organization>Arista Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jen Linkova" initials="J." surname="Linkova">
              <organization>Google</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Chris Lenart" initials="C." surname="Lenart">
              <organization>Verizon</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Mohamed Boucadair" initials="M." surname="Boucadair">
              <organization>Orange</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="21" month="July" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   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.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis-01"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
