Traceroute and Ping Message Extension
draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alia Atlas , Carlos Pignataro , Enke Chen , Naiming Shen , Rajiv Asati | ||
| Last updated | 2011-10-31 (Latest revision 2011-09-14) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-03
Internet N. Shen
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro
Intended status: Standards Track R. Asati
Expires: May 3, 2012 E. Chen
Cisco Systems
A. Atlas
Juniper Networks
October 31, 2011
Traceroute and Ping Message Extension
draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-03
Abstract
This document specifies extensions to traceroute and ping techniques
to facilitate addition application information to be carried in UDP,
TCP and ICMP traceroute probe messages and ICMP echo request and
reply messages. This proposal also allows the receiver to
authenticate the source of the traceroute and ping senders.
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 http://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 May 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
(http://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
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Trace-Ping Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Trace-Ping Extension Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Trace-Ping Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. Trace-Ping Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2.1. Trace-Ping Authentication Object . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2.2. Trace-Ping Information-Request Object . . . . . . 7
4.2. Trace-Ping Extension Offset Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. UDP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. TCP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. ICMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Implementation Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Implementation and Operation Considerations . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Traceroute and Ping Probe Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Traceroute and Ping Probe Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
Traceroute and Ping are two of commonly used tools in the diagnosis
of network problems. This document proposes the mechanism by which
the traceroute probe messages and ICMP echo request/reply messages
can be extended to include other user information various
applications may want to include; and it can be optionally
authenticated by the receiving node(s). These mechanisms are
intended for network operators to perform more secured network
management and troubleshooting tasks while using traceroute and ping
tools. The changes proposed in this document are backward compatible
(with the existing traceroute and ping tools) and applicable to both
IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
The mechanisms specified in this document apply to to the following
traceroute and ping probe protocols: UDP [RFC0768], TCP [RFC0793],
and ICMP/ICMPv6 [RFC0792] [RFC4443]. This mechanism also applies to
the ICMP/ICMPv6 echo reply messages [RFC0792].
This document defines an extension for traceroute and ping probe
messages to optionally include authentication signature object. The
intermediate and destination nodes can authenticate the sender of the
traceroute or ping packet before providing the requested information
in the ICMP response. This document also defines an optional
Information-Request Object for the traceroute/ping extension. This
Object specifies the types of information the sender expects to be
included in the traceroute/ping response (i.e., in the ICMP message
elicited by the traceroute/ping packet and generated by the
intermediate or destination node or nodes).
Other applications can define their own Trace-Ping objects using this
extension.
3. Motivation
The current traceroute or ping has no defined mechanism to include
application data on the sender side, or to include application data
in the ICMP echo reply on the receiver side. Although the [RFC4884]
has defined the multi-part message extension in ICMP, it is applied
only to the ICMP type 3, 11 and 12 for traceroute reply messages.
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
Those mechanisms are not applied to traceroute probe messages or ICMP
echo request/reply messages.
For security concerns of traceroute or ping packets, one may employ a
rudimentary control mechanism to limit the trusted senders by
defining on every router the access control lists specifying source
addresses of the traceroute and ping message, such mechanism is
deemed configuration intensive, static, and error-prone. Moreover,
such mechanism would be susceptible to address spoofing.
Additionally, such mechanism does not provide the sender with dynamic
control of the different kind of extensions to be requested.
The ICMP reply messages has been extended to support multi-part
message inside ICMP [RFC4884] for some ICMP types. Some of the
applications [RFC5837] [RFC4950] [I-D.shen-icmp-routing-inst] are
designed mainly for internal network troubleshooting by network
operators. Network providers may want to limit those applications
only to trusted senders of traceroute/ping probes due to security or
policy reasons by using this mechanism described in this document.
Other applications, for example the TRILL-OAM [I-D.tissa-trill-oam]
can use this scheme to extend their OAM application using ICMP echo
request and reply for data center troubleshootings.
4. Trace-Ping Message Extension
This proposed extension is to define a Trace-Ping data structure
which resides within UDP/TCP/ICMP data field; and to reserve the
lowest 4 bits inside a 16-bit field within UDP/TCP/ICMP headers to
indicate the extension structure offset location.
In most of the traceroute implementation, there is some private data
in probe messages used by traceroute applications. With this
"extension offset" defined, the applications can continue to use
those private data while supporting this Trace-Ping extension in a
deterministic way. This extension applies to both traceroute and
ping applications.
4.1. Trace-Ping Extension Structure
The Trace-Ping structure starts in UDP/TCP/ICMP data field location
from 0 to 56 octets specified in the Trace-Ping "extension offset",
see Section 4.2, in 32-bit boundary. It MUST have exactly one Trace-
Ping common header followed by zero or more Trace-Ping Objects.
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
4.1.1. Trace-Ping Common Header
The Common Header is a 8 octets structure 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Length | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Magic-Number (0x54726163) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields of the Common Header are defined as follows:
Version: 4 bits. It is defined as 1 in this document.
Length: 12 bits. The total length of the Trace-Ping data structure
specifying number of 32-bit words (includes the common
header and all the Objects).
Checksum: 16 bits. The one's complement of the one's complement sum
of the Trace-Ping data structure, with the checksum field
replaced by zero for the purpose of computing the checksum.
Magic Number: 32 bits. It is defined as Hex value of 0x54726163 in
this document. This is used mainly for structure
identification of this extension version.
4.1.2. Trace-Ping Object
Trace-Ping Object have 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. // (object payload) // .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
Length: 16 bits. Length of object, measured in octets, including
the object header and object payload.
Class-Num: 8 bits. Identifies ICMP Trace-Ping object class.
C-Type: 8 bits. Identifies ICMP Trace-Ping object sub-type.
All the Trace-Ping Objects are optional. This document defines two
Trace-Ping Objects below.
4.1.2.1. Trace-Ping Authentication Object
This Object carries the HMAC authentication related information. It
verifies both the data integrity and the authenticity of the entire
message. This 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Auth Type | Key ID | Auth Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Auth Data (Variable) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Length: Variable, in octets.
Class-Num: IANA allocation from ICMP Trace-Ping extension registry.
C-Type: 1
Auth Type: 16 bits. The following values are proposed:
* Type=0 signifies no authentication.
* Type=1 signifies simple password based authentication.
* Type=2 signifies Cryptographic authentication.
Please note that the above type values are in line with IANA
allocated values for other protocols (e.g., OSPF).
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
Key ID: 8 bits. This allows multiple secret keys to be active
simultaneously. Using Key IDs makes the key rollover
convenient. Each secret key must be associated with the
hash algorithm. This may be done through provisioning on
each node.
Auth Data Len: 8 bits. This specifies the length of the
authentication data (and allows for the support of current
and future authentication schemes).
Auth Data: Variable length. This field carries the result (e.g.,
HMAC code) of the HMAC algorithm applied over the entire
traceroute/ping IP/IPv6 packet. When the Auth data is
calculated, the shared key is stored in this field, and the
checksum fields in the IP header, UDP/TCP/ICMP header and
Trace-Ping common header are set to zero. The result of the
algorithm is placed in the Auth Key field. The following
lists algorithms that could be commonly supported:
* HMAC-MD5
* HMAC-SHA1
* HMAC-SHA2 variants (e.g., 224, 256, 384, 512, etc.)
At least HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-SHA1 algorithms should be
supported on all the nodes compliant with this
specification.
4.1.2.2. Trace-Ping Information-Request Object
The Information-Request 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Info Request |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: 8
Class-Num: IANA allocation, the same Class-Num value as in
Section 4.1.2.1.
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
C-Type: 2
Info-Req: 32 bits. This bitflag field lists the request items the
probe sender is interested. The bit number ranges from the
right most bit to the left most bit. Currently defined as
the following:
Bit Number Information Item
0 MPLS label related attributes
1 Interface related attributes
2 IP/IPv6 address related attributes
3 Routing Instance related attributes
4 Nexthop(s) related attributes
5 Device role related attributes
4.2. Trace-Ping Extension Offset Field
This Trace-Ping "extension offset" field is defined as the lowest
nibble within a 16-bit field, and it specifies the position at which
the Trace-Ping extension data structure begins. The value represents
32-bit words ranges from 0x0 to 0xF, with value 0xF as reserved.
Thus the position of the Trace-Ping data structure can start from 0
to 56 octets inside TCP, UDP or ICMP request and reply message data
field. The Trace-Ping "extension offset" field value 0xF indicates
there is no Trace-Ping data structure inside the message data field.
The Trace-Ping "extension offset" field is defined as the following:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |Ext-Off|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Off: 4 bits. The value (Ext-Off) represents the Trace-Ping data
structure start position in 32-bit words. The Ext-Off value
0xF is reserved.
The rest of the 12 bits out of this 16-bit field is not changed by
this proposal. For application usage detail in terms of different
traceroute/ping probe types, see Section 4.2.4.
4.2.1. UDP Messages
In the UDP traceroute/ping probe case, this 16-bit field is the UDP
source port field in UDP header [RFC0768]. The "Ext-Off" specifies
the Trace-Ping extension structure start location inside UDP data
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
field. The below diagram shows the "Ext-Off" position in the UDP
header "Source Port" field.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port |Ext-Off| Destination Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| UDP data octets... |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ...
4.2.2. TCP Messages
In the TCP traceroute/ping probe case, this 16-bit field is the TCP
source port field in TCP header [RFC0793]. The "Ext-Off" specifies
the Trace-Ping extension structure start location inside TCP data
field. The below diagram shows the "Ext-Off" position in the TCP
header of the "Source Port" field.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port |Ext-Off| Destination Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Acknowledgment Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data | |U|A|P|R|S|F| |
| Offset| Reserved |R|C|S|S|Y|I| Window |
| | |G|K|H|T|N|N| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum | Urgent Pointer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
4.2.3. ICMP Messages
In the ICMP traceroute/ping request/reply case, this 16-bit field is
the "Identifier" field of ICMP type 0 or 8 structure [RFC0792], The
"Ext-Off" specifies the Trace-Ping extension structure start location
inside ICMP data field of the type 0(ICMP echo reply) and type 8(ICMP
echo request) message. The below diagram shows the "Ext-Off"
position in the ICMP type 0 or 8 "Identifier" field.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier |Ext-Off| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+-
The ICMP echo reply is normally implemented by copying the data field
of the ICMP echo request into the ICMP echo reply data field. When
this Trace-Ping extension is used, it will overwrite part or whole
portion of the original data field. The ICMP echo reply packet can
be longer in length then the ICMP echo request in the case
application has more data to include then the original echo request
data field length.The ICMP echo reply application data using Trace-
Ping extension is located by the "Ext-Off" filed.
If the ICMP echo request and reply both support this Trace-Ping
extension, then the upper 12-bits of the Id filed of the ICMP echo
request SHOULD be copied to the upper 12-bits of the Id field of the
ICMP echo reply message. The "Ext-Off" field of the echo request and
reply messages can be different if this is necessary.
4.2.4. Implementation Discussion
In the majority of today's traceroute implementations, the
application process identifier (process-ID) is used as the UDP source
port for UDP type of traceroute probe; in TCP implementation, the
process-ID is used as the TCP source port for traceroute probe; and
the process-ID is also used as the ICMP Identifier of ICMP type 8
message. With this extension, an implementation can use the highest
12-bits of the source port field for UDP/TCP header and ID field for
ICMP type 8 message to encode this process information since the
lowest 4-bits are now reserved for the Trace-Ping "extension offset".
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
Ping implementation is similar to traceroute, it either uses the
process-ID or an internally generated number inside the ICMP echo
request ID field and in UDP/TCP source port field. An implementation
now can use the highest 12-bits of the field and leave the lowest
4-bits for the Trace-Ping extension.
5. Implementation and Operation Considerations
There is no change in this extension for the normal traceroute/ping
implementation and operation except for reserving the lowest 4 bits
in the UDP/TCP source port field and ICMP Id field of type 0 and type
8 message. The implementations for the sender can use the same
semantics with this 16-bit field; and it makes no difference to the
receivers if they don't support this extension.
5.1. Traceroute and Ping Probe Sender
The sender supports this extension MAY include the Trace-Ping
structure in it's traceroute/ping probe to specify the request types,
authentication key, or other application objects. The sender SHOULD
set the "extension offset" value to 0xF if there is no Trace-Ping
structure present inside the probe. The sender MAY request one or
multiple types of information defined in the Trace-Ping "Info-Req"
Object.
5.2. Traceroute and Ping Probe Receiver
When the traceroute/ping probe receiver, the intermediate and
destination node, processes the incoming probe, it MAY check the
Trace-Ping structure to verify if the sender is from an authenticated
host and to see what types of information it requested. This check
is only needed when the receiver tries to authenticate the probe
sender, or when the receiver is formating the ICMP and ICMPv6s that
support multi-part messages or this Trace-Ping extension messages
inside the echo reply object, and it has certain internal information
that can be included in the ICMP packets.
If the Trace-Ping "extension offset" value is not 0xF, the Trace-Ping
structure may be present. The receiver MUST verify the integrity of
the data structure by examining the "version" field, the Magic-Number
value, and the length of the Trace-Ping structure. It MUST perform
the checksum to verify the Trace-Ping data structure. If the
authentication Object is present and the local policy requires it to
perform the verification, the receiver MUST use it's locally stored
shared key to validate the checksum in the Object. Multiple
Authentication Keys can be used which can be useful in the case the
probes are from trusted peer networks.
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
If the Trace-Ping "Info-Req" Object is included, the receiver SHOULD
fetch the related information when formating the ICMP packets, but
MUST NOT include information that has the corresponding bitflag
cleared.
Even if the authentication fails, the receiver MAY still send the
regular ICMP reply back to the sender, without the requested or
internal information, as if this Trace-Ping extension is not
supported.
6. Security Considerations
This extension enhances the security of traceroute and ping operation
in a backwards-compatible fashion. The mechanism allows the receiver
to verify the sender of the traceroute/ping packet such that certain
sensitive application, interface and network related information can
be supplied in the internal network or across trusted networks.
The use of Cryptographic authentication (i.e., an Auth Type value of
2) allows for a strong authentication mechanism since the keys cannot
be discerned by intercepting the packets. The proposed Keyed
authentication does not prevent replay attacks. However, in the case
of replay attacks, since the packet source IP/IPv6 address of the
traceroute/ping probe can not be changed, there is no easy way for
the attacker to retrieve the ICMP messages.
A router needs to protect against purposefully-bogus Traceroute
packets with extensions that fail the authentication, as a high rate
of messages can require significant processing time. [RFC1812]
specifies how rate-limiting is applied to the generation of ICMP
messages, and this rate-limiting deters the threat when applied
before checking the Authentication. Additionally, when using
Cryptographic authentication, the HMAC includes the source IP
address, which means the HMAC will not validate if the traceroute/
ping packet is sent over a NAT.
7. IANA Considerations
The Trace-Ping Extension contains Trace-Ping Objects. IANA is
requested to assign a new Class-Num for the Trace-Ping extension, and
a sub-registry under Trace-Ping extension to include c-types. This
document has defined c-type 1 and 2 for authentication and
information-request objects. c-types 3-0xF6 are allocated through
Expert Review [RFC5226]. C-types 0xF7 to 0xFF are reserved for
private use.
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
IANA should also establish a registry for Trace-Ping Info-Request
Bits under the information-request sub-registry. This document
defines bits 0 - 5 in Section 4.1.2.2. Bits 6-29 are allocated
through Expert Review. Bits 30 - 31 are reserved for private use.
8. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Dan Wing, Tony Li, and Tissa Senevirathne for their
insightful comments and valuable suggestions regarding this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.shen-icmp-routing-inst]
Shen, N. and E. Chen, "ICMP Extensions for Routing
Instances", draft-shen-icmp-routing-inst-00 (work in
progress), November 2006.
[I-D.tissa-trill-oam]
Senevirathne, T., Dutt, D., and V. Manral, "ICMP based OAM
Solution for TRILL", draft-tissa-trill-oam-00 (work in
progress), October 2011.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
April 2007.
[RFC4950] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "ICMP
Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching", RFC 4950,
August 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5837] Atlas, A., Bonica, R., Pignataro, C., Shen, N., and JR.
Rivers, "Extending ICMP for Interface and Next-Hop
Identification", RFC 5837, April 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Naiming Shen
Cisco Systems
225 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: naiming@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
7200 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Traceroute Ping Extension October 2011
Enke Chen
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: enkechen@cisco.com
Alia K. Atlas
Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
USA
Email: akatlas@juniper.net
Shen, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 15]