Internet-Draft icmp-eh-len July 2025
Bonica, et al. Expires 30 January 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
INTAREA Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-04
Updates:
4884 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
R. Bonica
HPE
X. He
China Telecom
X. Min
ZTE Corporation
T. Mizrahi
Huawei

ICMP Extension Structure Length Field

Abstract

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.

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 30 January 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The ICMP Extension Structure [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.

For example, [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.

Because the ICMP Extension Structure does not have a length field, [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.

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 [RFC4884].

2. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. 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 [RFC4884]. This document modifies the Extension Header format by allocating the lower 8 bits of the reserved field for a new length field. Figure 1 depicts the updated Extension Header 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 Version Rsvd Length Checksum
Figure 1: ICMP Extension Header As Updated By This Document

Version: 4 bits.

Reserved (Rsvd): 4 bits

Length: 8 bits

Checksum: 16 bits

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.

4. 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:

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.

5. IANA Considerations

This document requires no IANA actions.

6. Security Considerations

This document introduces no security vulnerabilities. However, it does inherit security considerations from [RFC4884].

7. Acknowledgements

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

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC4884]
Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4884>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

8.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis]
Fenner, B., Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M. Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis-01, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis-01>.

Authors' Addresses

Ron Bonica
HPE
United States of America
Xiaoming He
China Telecom
China
Xiao Min
ZTE Corporation
China
Tal Mizrahi
Huawei
Israel