Hi Xiao, > - Is there a reason not to use ICMP Extended Echo Request/Reply with > newly defined object types? It would appear you would get the same > result without allocating new ICMP types. > [XM]>>> Yes, we considered to reuse the ICMP types for Extended Echo, however > it's abandoned mainly because the Extended Echo (as defined in > draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis) requires to include an optional data section > at the end and it requires the echoed object has the same length with the > received one.
The current version of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis does not mandate the use of optional data for all Extended Echo Request/Reply messages, but only for those that use the PROBE utility. Please note this text in draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis: ...The behavior when it contains a different Extension Object is not defined by this memo but may be defined in the future. Also please note that draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection also uses Extended Echo Request/Reply without optional data. It appears that using Extended Echo Request/Reply should work well for your use case. Cheers, Tal. On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 11:18 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tal, > > Thank you for the review and good questions. > Please see inline my answers. > Original > From: TalMizrahi <[email protected]> > To: 肖敏10093570; > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; > Date: 2026年03月01日 14:19 > Subject: Re: [Int-area] ICMP Query and ICMP Query for IOAM > Hi Xiao, > > Two questions regarding draft-xbm-intarea-icmp-query-00: > - Is there a reason not to use ICMP Extended Echo Request/Reply with > newly defined object types? It would appear you would get the same > result without allocating new ICMP types. > [XM]>>> Yes, we considered to reuse the ICMP types for Extended Echo, however > it's abandoned mainly because the Extended Echo (as defined in > draft-ietf-intarea-rfc8335bis) requires to include an optional data section > at the end and it requires the echoed object has the same length with the > received one. > > - It would be very useful to include the use case in the draft, and > specifically to explain whether this draft is intended to use the > capabilities defined in RFC 9359. > [XM]>>> The current use case is to query the IOAM capabilities defined in RFC > 9359, which has been specified in the updated > draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state. The intention is to make the ICMP > Query generic enough and suitable for future extensions. > > Thanks, > Xiao Min > > Cheers, > Tal. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:11 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > A new document draft-xbm-intarea-icmp-query-00 has been submitted. This > > draft introduces two new ICMP messages (ICMP Query Request/Response) for > > the purpose of IP node information query. > > After that, draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-conf-state was updated and its basis was > > changed from RFC 4620 to draft-xbm-intarea-icmp-query. > > Links for the two drafts are as below. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xbm-intarea-icmp-query-00 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state-10 > > > > Looking forward to your review and comments. > > > > Cheers, > > Xiao Min > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
