Internet DRAFT - draft-pignataro-eimpact-icmp
draft-pignataro-eimpact-icmp
Network Working Group C. Pignataro
Internet-Draft J. Parikh
Intended status: Experimental NC State University
Expires: 5 September 2024 R. Bonica
Juniper
M. Welzl
University of Oslo
4 March 2024
ICMP Extensions for Environmental Information
draft-pignataro-eimpact-icmp-01
Abstract
This document defines a data structure that can be appended to
selected ICMP messages. The ICMP extension defined herein can be
used to gain visibility on environmental impact information on the
Internet by providing per-hop (i.e., per topological network node)
power metrics and other current or future sustainability metrics.
This will contribute to achieving an objective mentioned in the IAB
E-Impact workshop.
The techniques presented are useful not only in a transactional
setting (e.g., a user-issued traceroute or a ping request), but also
in a scheduled automated setting where they may be run periodically
in a mesh across an administrative domain to map out environmental-
impact metrics.
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 5 September 2024.
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Transport Options for Sustainability Information . . . . . . 4
5. ICMP Environmental Information Extension . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Extension Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. C-Type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Sample Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
IP devices use the Internet Control Message Protocol ICMPv4 [RFC0792]
and ICMPv6 [RFC4443] to convey control information to source hosts.
In particular, when an IP device receives a datagram that it cannot
process, it may send an ICMP message to the datagram's originator or
source. Network operators and higher-level protocols use these ICMP
messages to detect and diagnose network issues.
As the world transitions towards sustainability in technology, the
focus is shifting not only on creating modern technologies infused
with sustainability but also on bridging gaps in the tools that are
already available, to enhance visibility, measurement, and
quantification of their impact. Consequently, tools which have been
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
foundational for control and management for decades now encounter new
requirements including enhancing them to cater to a significantly
increasing demand for monitoring the sustainability and environmental
impact. This document serves that need by defining an ICMP extension
object that appends environmental impact information to ICMP
messages.
Using the extension defined herein, a device can explicitly append
these exemplary environmental impact metrics for transmission across
an administrative domain:
* Power metrics (e.g., time average, min/max)
* Electrical Energy Provider or Zone
* Geolocation
* Future sustainability metrics
2. Conventions
2.1. Definition of Terms
This document uses the following terms:
ICMP:
Generically referring to ICMPv4 [RFC0792] and ICMPv6 [RFC4443]
messages.
ICMP Extension:
Extended ICMP to support multi-part messages through an ICMP
extension structure, as defined in [RFC4884].
2.2. Requirements Language
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. Application
The IAB held a workshop on "Environmental Impact of Internet
Applications and Systems (eimpactws)" [IAB-EIMPACTWS], in which the
need for visibility into environmental impact metrics within
traditional Internet tools such as traceroute was highlighted (see
WebVTT cue identifiers 139 and 140 of [IAB-EIMPACTWS-Minutes].)
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
The Environmental Information ICMP Extensions defined in this
document allow for augmenting the traceroute output with
environmental metrics from each reported node.
4. Transport Options for Sustainability Information
To achieve the goal of transporting useful sustainability information
across the network, there are two key considerations. First, what
information is useful to convey and in what format, and second, how
to transport that sustainability information.
For the first task, it is critical to normalize and agree upon the
information to convey and format, across potentially multiple
transports.
For the second task, there is a variety of options available
depending on use cases. These can be categorized based on whether
the approach is distributed (i.e., any endpoint or node can request
and/or receive the sustainability information) or centralized (i.e.,
a single 'controller' compiles and consolidates the information.)
They can also be categorized based on the networking layer used
(e.g., IP, like ICMP, or application, like SNMP). Further, an
existing protocol can be extended, or a brand new protocol can
potentially be created for this purpose.
This document builds upon a standardized, modular, backwards-
compatible, and scale-proven ICMP extension [RFC4884]. This does not
preclude the definition of other methods to transport sustainability
information, more fitting to other use-cases.
5. ICMP Environmental Information Extension
This section defines the Environmental Information Object, an ICMP
extension object with a Class-Num (Object Class Value) of TBA that
can be appended to the following messages, as per [RFC4884] and
[RFC8335]:
* ICMPv4 Time Exceeded
* ICMPv4 Destination Unreachable
* ICMPv4 Parameter Problem
* ICMPv4 Extended Echo Reply [RFC8335]
* ICMPv6 Time Exceeded
* ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable
* ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply [RFC8335]
The ICMP extension defined in this document MAY be appended to any of
the above listed messages based on policy and following security
considerations.
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
These extensions are preceded by an ICMP Extension Structure Header,
and include an ICMP Object Header. Both are defined in [RFC4884].
The same backward compatibility issues that apply to [RFC4884] apply
to this extension.
A single ICMP message can contain zero, one, or multiple instances of
Environmental Information Objects. The C-Type further identifies the
information fields carried.
A single instance of the Environmental Information Object can convey
one of the information elements defined in Section 5.2 from each
reporting node in an administrative domain.
5.1. Extension Format
The ICMP Environmental Information Extension has the following
format.
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| Reserved | Checksum |(1)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
| Length | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+(2)
~ Object payload ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
Figure 1: ICMP Environmental Information Extension Format
(1) ICMP Extension Header
Version:
2 [RFC4884].
Reserved:
0 [RFC4884].
Checksum:
The one's complement checksum of the ICMP extension [RFC4884].
(2) Environmental Information Object
Length:
Length of the object, including header and payload, in octets.
Class-Num:
TBA (Environmental Information)
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
C-Type:
C-Type as explained in Section 5.2.
Object Payload:
As defined by each C-Type.
While there is a single ICMP Extension Header, there could be
multiple Environmental Information Objects.
5.2. C-Type Definition
The 8-bit C-Type defined in the Section 8 of [RFC4884] allows to
carry different information elements within this Class-Num (TBA).
The techniques herein defined can be used with any specific e-impact
metric in use, current or future.
The ICMP Environmental Information Extension Object header has the
following format:
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=TBA | C-Type=1-255 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Environmental Information Extension Object Header
The following C-Type values are currently defined.
1. Node Power Draw Sub-Object
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Power (32-bit unsigned word) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Node Power Draw Sub-Object
A Class-Num of TBA and a C-Type of 1 are specified.
The Length is always 8.
The returned value is the node-level current power being drawn,
which is a magnitude that may be directly displayed, and is
expressed in Watts (W).
2. Node Throughput Sub-Object
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Throughput (32-bit unsigned word) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Node Throughput Sub-Object
A Class-Num of TBA and a C-Type of 2 are specified.
The Length is always 8.
The returned value is the node-level current throughput, which is
a magnitude that may be directly displayed, and is expressed in
bits-per-second (BPS). This allows the recipient of the ICMP
message to determine a relationship between power and traffic
load.
3. Ecolabels and Environmentally Relevant Certification (EERC) Sub-
Object
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| EERC number |0 0 0 0| Year |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: EERC Sub-Object
A Class-Num of TBA and a C-Type of 3 are specified.
The Length is always 8.
The returned value references an Ecolabels and Environmentally
Relevant Certification (EERC) number. The following EERC numbers
are defined by the present specification:
1. ISO 14001:2015
2. TCO Certified
3. Energy-efficient ethernet
The "Year" field must contain the year in which the certificate
was issued, or 0 to indicate "unknown" or "not specified".
4. Component-level Power Draw Sub-Object
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UUID 32-bit Word 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UUID 32-bit Word 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UUID 32-bit Word 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UUID 32-bit Word 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Component Power (32-bit word) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Component-level Power Draw Element
A Class-Num of TBA and a C-Type of 4 are specified.
The Length is always 4 plus 20 times the number of elements
included.
The returned value is one or more instances of component-level
power drawn metrics. Each instance is a set comprised by a UUID
uniquely indentifying the component, and the actual power being
drawn by said component expressed in Watts (W).
6. Sample Use Case
This section explains a typical use case of the extensions.
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC4884] and of [RFC8335] apply to
these extensions.
Upon receipt of an ICMP message, application software must check it
for syntactic correctness. The extension checksum MUST be verified.
Care should be taken, as improperly specified length attributes and
other syntax problems may result in buffer overruns.
This document does not define the conditions under which a router
sends an ICMP message. Therefore, it does not expose routers to any
new denial-of-service attacks. Routers may need to limit the rate at
which ICMP messages are sent.
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
This document defines an extension that allows a router to append
environmental impact information to multi-part ICMP messages in a
single administrative domain, and therefore can provide the user of
the traceroute and ping applications with additional metrics.
The intended field of use for the extensions defined in this document
is administrative debugging and troubleshooting and operational
facilities. The extensions herein defined supply additional
information in ICMP responses. These mechanisms are not initially
intended for other uses.
Some of the additional metrics provided, as e.g., power draw
information, have privacy considerations. For example, behavioral
considerations of the devices, or estimating other node and network
attributes from the power or energy data. Other things like
identification of the node, deducing node usage patterns are some
more privacy concerns that can be related to the metrics.
Keeping these considerations in mind, we limited the scope of the
transportation of the sustainability metrics to a single
administrative domain. But, based on [RFC8799], limiting a protocols
functionality doesn't mean that it will be secure. So, this
particular document, which defines "a modified ICMP message with
sustainability metrics", can be classified as a FAIL-OPEN protocol
[I-D.wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains]. That is, the interfaces
of administrative domain border nodes, facing towards the open
internet, can be configured such that they avoid leaking messages
with extensions containing sustainability metrics, out of the AD. To
allow general ICMP messages, an administrator can configure those
outward facing interfaces to not block/drop the entire message but
only strip off the extension objects and only forward the ICMP
message if it is destined to go out of the AD.
When metrics are limited to the same AD, it can be considered that
they can be generated from a valid source and will have integrity.
This document does not specify an authentication mechanism for the
extension that it defines. Application developers should be aware of
various ICMP attacks [RFC5927].
8. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign the following object Class-num in the
ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class Sub-types registry
[IANA-ICMP-Extended]:
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
+=============+==================================+===============+
| Class Value | Class name | Reference |
+=============+==================================+===============+
| TBA | Environmental Information Object | This document |
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: Class-num for Environmental Information Extensions
IANA is requested to establish a registry for the corresponding class
sub-type (C-Type) space, as follows:
+==============+===============================+===============+
| C-Type Value | Description | Reference |
+==============+===============================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Node Power Draw | This document |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | Node Throughput | This document |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Ecolabels and Environmentally | This document |
| | Relevant Certification (EERC) | |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| 4 | Component-level Power Draw | This document |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| 2-246 | Unassigned | |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| 247-255 | Reserved for Experimentation | This document |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
Table 2: C-Types for Environmental Information Extensions
C-Type values are assignable on a first-come-first-serve (FCFS)
basis.
IANA is requested to establish a registry for Ecolabels and
Environmentally Relevant Certification (EERC) numbers (C-Type 2), as
follows:
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
+=============+==============================+===============+
| Number | Name | Reference |
+=============+==============================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | ISO 14001:2015 | This document |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | TCO Certified | This document |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Energy-efficient ethernet | This document |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 4-65527 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 65528-65535 | Reserved for Experimentation | This document |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
Table 3: EERC numbers
EERC numbers are assignable on a first-come-first-serve (FCFS) basis.
9. Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to Jari Arkko for his thorough review and most
useful set of comments and suggestions.
10. References
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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains]
Kumari, W. A., Alston, A., Vyncke, E., and S. Krishnan,
"Safe(r) Limited Domains", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains-00, 19
January 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains-00>.
[IAB-EIMPACTWS]
"IAB workshop on Environmental Impact of Internet
Applications and Systems (eimpactws)", December 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/eimpactws/>.
[IAB-EIMPACTWS-Minutes]
"Minutes for the IAB E-Impact Workshop Session 4: Next
Steps", eimpactws Session 4, 12 December 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2022-
eimpactws-04-202212121400/>.
[IANA-ICMP-Extended]
"Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Parameters, ICMP
Extension Object Classes and Class Sub-types",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-
parameters.xhtml#icmp-parameters-ext-classes>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[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>.
[RFC5927] Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", RFC 5927,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5927, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5927>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
Authors' Addresses
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ICMP E-Impact Extensions March 2024
Carlos Pignataro
North Carolina State University
United States of America
Email: cpignata@gmail.com, cmpignat@ncsu.edu
Jainam Parikh
North Carolina State University
United States of America
Email: jainam@parikhgroup.net, jparikh@ncsu.edu
Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks
United States of America
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Michael Welzl
University of Oslo
Norway
Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no
Pignataro, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]
