Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state
draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state
6MAN Working Group X. Min
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Updates: 4620, 4884 (if approved) G. Mirsky
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: 25 April 2024 23 October 2023
IPv6 Query for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state-02
Abstract
This document describes the application of the mechanism of
discovering IOAM capabilities, described in RFC 9359 "Ping Enabled
IOAM Capabilities", in IPv6 networks. IPv6 Node IOAM Request uses
the IPv6 Node Information messages, allowing the IOAM encapsulating
node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit
and IOAM decapsulating node.
This document updates RFCs 4620 and 4884.
Status of This Memo
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 25 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
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
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Node IOAM Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Examples of the Node IOAM Request . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Node IOAM Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. IOAM Capabilities Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Examples of the Node IOAM Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Code Field Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Updates to RFC 4884 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
IPv6 encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) data is defined in
[RFC9486], which uses the IPv6 hop-by-hop and destination options to
carry IOAM data fields ([RFC9197], [RFC9326]).
As specified in [RFC9359], the echo request/reply can be used by the
IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities at
the IOAM transit and decapsulating nodes.
As specified in [RFC4443], the Internet Control Message Protocol for
IPv6 (ICMPv6) is an integral part of IPv6, and the base protocol MUST
be fully implemented by every IPv6 node. ICMPv6 messages defined in
[RFC4443] include error messages and informational messages, and the
latter are referred to as ICMPv6 Echo Request/Reply messages.
[RFC4884] defines ICMPv6 Extension Structure by which multi-part
ICMPv6 error messages are supported. [RFC8335] defines ICMPv6
Extended Echo Request/Reply messages, and the ICMPv6 Extended Echo
Request contains an ICMPv6 Extension Structure customized for this
message. Both [RFC4884] and [RFC8335] provide sound principles and
examples on how to extend ICMPv6 messages.
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
As specified in [RFC4620], two types of IPv6 Node Information
messages, the Node Information Query (or NI Query) and the Node
Information Reply (or NI Reply), also known as ICMPv6 messages, are
used for a Querier node to query information of a Responder node.
This document describes the IPv6 Node IOAM Query functionality, which
uses the IPv6 Node Information messages, allowing the IOAM
encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each
IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node.
The IOAM encapsulating node sends a NI Query to each IOAM transit and
decapsulating node, then each receiving node executes access control
procedures, and if access is granted, each receiving node returns a
NI Reply which indicates the enabled IOAM capabilities of the
receiving node. The NI Reply contains an ICMPv6 Extension Structure
exactly customized to this message, and the ICMPv6 Extension
Structure contains one or more IOAM Capabilities Objects.
Note that before the IOAM encapsulating node sends the NI Query, it
needs to know the IPv6 address of each node along the transport path
of a data packet to which IOAM data would be added. That can be
achieved by executing ICMPv6/UDP traceroute or provisioning explicit
path at the IOAM encapsulating node. In an Equal-Cost Multipath
(ECMP) scenario, the same value or values in any ECMP affecting
fields (e.g., the 3-tuple of the Flow Label, Source Address, and
Destination Address fields [RFC6437]) of IOAM data packets MUST be
populated in the NI Query, ensuring the fate sharing between the NI
Query and IOAM data packets.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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.
3. Node IOAM Request
The Node IOAM Request message is encapsulated in an IPv6 header
[RFC8200], like any ICMPv6 message.
The Node IOAM Request message has the following format:
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Qtype | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Nonce +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of IOAM Namespace-IDs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Node IOAM Request Message
IPv6 Header fields:
* Source Address: The Source Address identifies the IOAM
encapsulating node. It MUST be a valid IPv6 unicast address.
* Destination Address: The Destination Address identifies the IOAM
transit or decapsulating node. It MUST be a valid IPv6 unicast
address.
ICMPv6 fields:
* Type: NI Query. The value is 139 as allocated for [RFC4620].
* Code: The value is (TBD1) the Data field contains a List of IOAM
Namespace-IDs which is the Subject of this Query.
* Checksum: The ICMPv6 checksum.
* Qtype: The value is TBD2, which indicates the NI Query is a node
IOAM capabilities query.
* Flags: The same as defined in [RFC4620]. Flags are Qtype-
specific, the NI Query Qtype used in this document has no defined
flags.
* Nonce: The same as defined in [RFC4620].
* Data: Following the NI Query header, the Data field is a List of
IOAM Namespace-IDs, which is also called IOAM Capabilities Query
Container payload in Section 3.1 of [RFC9359].
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
3.1. Examples of the Node IOAM Request
The format of a Node IOAM Request can vary from deployment to
deployment.
In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the Node
IOAM Request is depicted as the following:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Qtype | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Nonce +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Zero-padded |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Node IOAM Request of the Default IOAM Namespace
In a deployment where two Namespace-IDs (Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-
ID2) are used, the Node IOAM Request is depicted as the following:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Qtype | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Nonce +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID1 | Namespace-ID2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Node IOAM Request of the Two IOAM Namespaces
Note that when a Node IOAM Request message is received, the message
length is indicated by the Payload Length field of IPv6 Header
[RFC8200].
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
4. Node IOAM Reply
The Node IOAM Reply message is encapsulated in an IPv6 header
[RFC8200], like any ICMPv6 message.
The Node IOAM Reply message has the following format:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Qtype | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Nonce +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of IOAM Capabilities Objects .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Node IOAM Reply Message
IPv6 Header fields:
* Source Address: Copied from the Destination Address field of the
invoking Node IOAM Request packet.
* Destination Address: Copied from the Source Address field of the
invoking Node IOAM Request packet.
ICMPv6 fields:
* Type: NI Reply. The value is 140 as allocated for [RFC4620].
* Code: The values are (TBD3) No Matched Namespace-ID, and (TBD4)
Exceed the minimum IPv6 MTU. See Section 5 for details.
* Checksum: The ICMPv6 checksum.
* Qtype: Copied from the Qtype field of the invoking Node IOAM
Request.
* Flags: The same as defined in [RFC4620]. Flags are Qtype-
specific, the NI Reply Qtype used in this document has no defined
flags.
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
* Nonce: Copied from the Nonce field of the invoking Node IOAM
Request.
* Data: Following the NI Reply header, the Data field is a List of
IOAM Capabilities Objects, which is also called IOAM Capabilities
Response Container payload in Section 3.2 of [RFC9359]. Section 7
of [RFC4884] defines the ICMP Extension Structure. As per RFC
4884, the Extension Structure contains exactly one Extension
Header followed by one or more objects. When applied to the Node
IOAM Reply message, the ICMP Extension Structure MUST contain one
or more IOAM Capabilities Objects.
4.1. IOAM Capabilities Objects
All ICMPv6 IOAM Capabilities Objects are encapsulated in a Node IOAM
Reply message.
Each ICMPv6 IOAM Capabilities Object has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM Capabilities Object Payload .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: IOAM Capabilities Object
Object fields:
* Class-Num: IOAM Capabilities Objects. The values are listed as
the following:
Value Object Name
----- -----------
TBD5 IOAM Tracing Capabilities Object
TBD6 IOAM Proof of Transit Capabilities Object
TBD7 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
TBD8 IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
TBD9 IOAM End-of-Domain Object
* C-Type: Values are listed as the following:
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
Class-Num C-Type C-Type Name
--------- ------ -----------
TBD5 0 Reserved
1 Pre-allocated Tracing
TBD6 0 Reserved
TBD7 0 Reserved
TBD8 0 Reserved
TBD9 0 Reserved
* Length: Length of the object, measured in octets, including the
Object Header and payload.
* Object payload: Following the IOAM Capabilities Object Header,
it's the IOAM Capabilities Object payload, which is defined
respectively in Section 3.2.1, Section 3.2.3, Section 3.2.4,
Section 3.2.5 and Section 3.2.6 of [RFC9359].
4.2. Examples of the Node IOAM Reply
The format of a Node IOAM Reply can vary from deployment to
deployment.
In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the IOAM
Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities and the IOAM Proof of Transit
Capabilities are enabled at the IOAM transit node that received a
Node IOAM Request, the Node IOAM Reply is depicted as the following:
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Qtype | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Nonce +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Example 1 of the Node IOAM Reply
In a deployment where two Namespace-IDs (Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-
ID2) are used, for both Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-ID2 the IOAM Pre-
allocated Tracing Capabilities and the IOAM Proof of Transit
Capabilities are enabled at the IOAM transit node that received a
Node IOAM Request, the Node IOAM Reply is depicted as the following:
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Qtype | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Nonce +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID1 | Ingress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID1 | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID2 | Ingress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID2 | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Example 2 of the Node IOAM Reply
In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the IOAM
Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities, the IOAM Proof of Transit
Capabilities, and the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities are enabled at
the IOAM decapsulating node that received a Node IOAM Request, the
Node IOAM Reply is depicted as the following:
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Qtype | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Nonce +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | IOAM-E2E-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|TSF| Reserved | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Example 3 of the Node IOAM Reply
Note that when a Node IOAM Reply message is received, the message
length is indicated by the Payload Length field of IPv6 Header
[RFC8200].
5. Code Field Processing
The Code field in the Node IOAM Reply MUST be set to (TBD3) No
Matched Namespace-ID if any of the following conditions applies:
* The Node IOAM Request does not include any Namespace-ID.
* None of the contained list of IOAM Namespace-IDs is recognized.
* None of the contained list of IOAM Namespace-IDs is enabled.
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
The Code field in the Node IOAM Reply MUST be set to (TBD4) Exceed
the minimum IPv6 MTU if the formatted NI Reply packet exceeds the
minimum IPv6 MTU (i.e., 1280 octets). In this case, all objects MUST
be stripped before forwarding the Node IOAM Reply to its destination.
6. Updates to RFC 4884
Section 4.6 of [RFC4884] provides a list of extensible ICMP messages
(i.e., messages that can carry the ICMP Extension Structure). This
document adds the IPv6 Node Information Query message and the IPv6
Node Information Reply message to that list.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following IANA actions:
* Add the following Code to the "Type 139 - ICMP Node Information
Query" sub-registry:
- (TBD1) The Data field contains a List of IOAM Namespace-IDs
which is the Subject of this Query
* Add the following to the "Qtypes" registry:
- TBD2 Node IOAM Capabilities
* Add the following Codes to the "Type 140 - ICMP Node Information
Response" sub-registry:
- (TBD3) No Matched Namespace-ID
- (TBD4) Exceed the minimum IPv6 MTU
* Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
Sub-types" registry:
- (TBD5) IOAM Tracing Capabilities Object
* Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD5 - IOAM
Tracing Capabilities Object" sub-registry:
- (0) Reserved
- (1) Pre-allocated Tracing
* Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
Sub-types" registry:
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
- (TBD6) IOAM Proof of Transit Capabilities Object
* Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD6 - IOAM
Proof of Transit Capabilities Object" sub-registry:
- (0) Reserved
* Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
Sub-types" registry:
- (TBD7) IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
* Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD7 - IOAM
Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object" sub-registry:
- (0) Reserved
* Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
Sub-types" registry:
- (TBD8) IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
* Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD8 - IOAM
DEX Capabilities Object" sub-registry:
- (0) Reserved
* Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
Sub-types" registry:
- (TBD9) IOAM End-of-Domain Object
* Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD9 - IOAM
End-of-Domain Object" sub-registry:
- (0) Reserved
All codes mentioned above are assigned on a First Come First Serve
(FCFS) basis with a range of 0-255.
8. Security Considerations
Securiy issues discussed in [RFC4620] and [RFC9359] apply to this
document.
This document recommends using IP Authentication Header [RFC4302] or
IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC4303] to provide
integrity protection for IOAM capabilities information.
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
This document recommends using IP Encapsulating Security Payload
Header [RFC4303] to provide privacy protection for IOAM capabilities
information.
This document recommends that the network operators establish
policies that restrict access to IPv6 Node IOAM Query functionality.
In order to enforce these policies, nodes that support IPv6 Node IOAM
Query functionality MUST support the following configuration options:
* Enable/disable IPv6 Node IOAM Query functionality. By default,
IPv6 Node IOAM Query functionality is disabled.
* Define enabled Namespace-IDs. By default, all Namespace-IDs
except the default one (i.e., Namespace-ID 0x0000) are disabled.
* For each enabled Namespace-ID, define the prefixes from which Node
IOAM Request messages are permitted.
In order to protect local resources, implementations SHOULD rate-
limit incoming Node IOAM Request messages.
Considering the packet size of the Node IOAM Reply could be much
larger than that of the Node IOAM Request, to mitigate the potential
amplification attack by using the Node IOAM Request with a spoofed
source address, which is similar to the amplification attack by
sending an ICMPv6 ECHO_REQUEST to ff02::1 with a spoofed source
address (refer to Section 2.3.5 of [RFC9099]), an implementation that
supports this specification MUST support an option of padding a Node
IOAM Request packet to the Path MTU or the minimum IPv6 MTU
[RFC8200], which can ensure that the Node IOAM Reply packet would not
be larger than the invoking Node IOAM Request packet. The network
operators can choose to enforce the padding option or not in their
networks.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Eric Vyncke and Erik Kline for
their valuable suggestions on using IPv6 Node Information Queries as
the basis.
The authors would like to acknowledge Bob Hinden for his valuable
suggestions on the ICMPv6 message format.
The authors would like to acknowledge Chongfeng Xie, Zhenqiang Li,
and David Lamparter for their review and helpful comments.
10. References
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4620] Crawford, M. and B. Haberman, Ed., "IPv6 Node Information
Queries", RFC 4620, DOI 10.17487/RFC4620, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4620>.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9359] Min, X., Mirsky, G., and L. Bo, "Echo Request/Reply for
Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities", RFC 9359,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9359, April 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9359>.
[RFC9486] Bhandari, S., Ed. and F. Brockners, Ed., "IPv6 Options for
In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(IOAM)", RFC 9486, DOI 10.17487/RFC9486, September 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9486>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities October 2023
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8335] Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M.
Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces",
RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>.
[RFC9099] Vyncke, É., Chittimaneni, K., Kaeo, M., and E. Rey,
"Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks",
RFC 9099, DOI 10.17487/RFC9099, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9099>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.
[RFC9326] Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.
Authors' Addresses
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Phone: +86 18061680168
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Min & Mirsky Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 16]
