In many cases, the whole point of using ping and traceroute is to verify that the entire route between nodes works. The PROBE approach doesn’t provide all of the needed functionality.
From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 3:23 PM To: Robinson, Herbie <[email protected]>; Bill Fenner <[email protected]> Cc: Internet Area <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6 - "IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop" ________________________________ On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:08 PM, Herbie Robinson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think the ICMP problem needs to be addressed. Perhaps with an IPv4 option to embed the identity of the router (IPv6 address or some other way to identify the owner). One of the main purposes of traceroute is to identify the router that is dropping packets. It will not be helpful if all the routers have the same name. Yup. Fully agreed. Bill Fenner is actually working on a solution to this, and so I've taken the liberty of adding him to the CC list… Bill and Jen Linkova had also suggested something based on the approach used in RFC8335 - "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces"<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8335> , and Bill is also working on an update (draft-fenner-int-probe-clarification - "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces"<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fenner-int-probe-clarification> ). Just to confirm, this is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6/<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/VDvBCOY6RYt2ZpXWcvIT2O/> currently at -02. Correct?
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
