Rolf,
In Section 3, you say that the that the Traceroute Request has the following
type values:
*
ICMPv4: Value 8
*
ICMPv6: Value 128
This means that the Traceroute Request is the ICMP Echo message, as defined in
RFC 792.
Likewise, you say that the that the Traceroute Response message has the
following type values:
*
ICMPv4: Value 0
*
ICMPv6: Value 129
This means that the Traceroute Response is the ICMP Echo reply message, as
defined in RFC 792.
Sadly, neither of these messages are extensible. See Section 4 of RFC 4884 for
details.
You can avoid this problem by using the ICMP Extended Echo Request and Extended
Echo Reply instead. See Sections 2 and 3 of RC 8335 for details.
Ron
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 17:18:49 +0200
From: Rolf Winter <[email protected]>
Subject: [Int-area] v03 Stateless Reverse Traceroute
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-512;
boundary="------------ms040302020701060508000004"
Dear Int-Area WG,
we just updated the Stateless Reverse Traceroute document.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-heiwin-intarea-reverse-traceroute-stateless-03__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HUAZjKrkcbREVu-ldPQN9adFNpehbEzzDNoQSQBdDW5cjAFM3ej7PtQjgmX7vtDWp6bzXNhxdPDJZ-cXygxHnz4Por0$
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
