Subject: [Ietf-behave] What to do about ICMP

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:42:23 -0800 (PST)

When we were putting our goal together long ago, we said, ICMP, that's a
protocol, we will have a document for it. Now it is looking more like there
is not much to say about it other than in the context of other documents.

What do we need to say about it outside the context of anything else such as
UDP, Multicast, or TCP? Do we need a document on this? Should we just wrap
it into another document? Does anyone care what NAT's do with ping?

Thoughts ?

Thanks, Cullen

---

From: Harald Welte <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:03:24 -0800 (PST)

> it into another document? Does anyone care what NAT's do with ping?

Well, there are basically two types of icmp messages

1) error messages related to TCP/UDP/... connections

2) query-response messsages such as ECHO REQUESST / REPLY

'1' is mostly generic (like the NAT needs to also translate the
inner ip and transport  header encapsulated inside of the error
message).  It is related to TCP/UDP, but can be described in a generic
way, I think.

I think it would be sane to REQUIRE a NAT to correctly translate
PORT/HOST/NET UNREACHABLE and especially FRAGMENTATION NEEDED.

'2' is totally independent from other protocols.

So I see no reason why it should be merged into TCP/UDP documents.  It
shold be an entirely seperate document only describing ICMP translation
requirements.

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>               http://www.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support it your lifetime
Attachment:
signature.asc

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:47:25 -0800 (PST)

Harald,

Both uses of ICMP you list below are covered in RFC 3022 (sections 4.1 & 4.3).
I believe, the Behave drafts ought to simply cover those cases where these is
room for subjectivity and misinterpretation, right.  If so, I would argue,
item-1 below is the most likely to have misinterpretations (if any) and could
be covered under the auspices of TCP & UDP behave drafts, right?

cheers,
suresh

> ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature name=signature.asc
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-behave mailing list
> Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave
> 

=====

---

From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:48:22 -0800 (PST)

On Dec 12, 2004, at 10:47 PM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

Harald,

Both uses of ICMP you list below are covered in RFC 3022 (sections 4.1  
& 4.3).
I believe, the Behave drafts ought to simply cover those cases where  
these is
room for subjectivity and misinterpretation, right.  If so, I would  
argue,
item-1 below is the most likely to have misinterpretations (if any)  
and could
be covered under the auspices of TCP & UDP behave drafts, right?
Yes, and section 8 of draft-ietf-behave-nat-00.txt already discusses  
how a NAT should handle ICMPs that come back after the NAT has sent a  
UDP packet.  draft-ietf-behave-nat is the UDP BEHAVE document (at the  
IETF meeting it was agreed it will be renamed to make it clearer that  
it's UDP-only).

I think that leaves us with a perhaps very small document to discuss  
how unsolicited ICMP messages, such as echo request, are supposed to be  
handled and the existing router requirements in this area (RFC1812,  
section 4) and the host requirements (RFC1123, section 3.2.2).

-d

cheers,
suresh

When we were putting our goal together long ago, we said, ICMP,  
that's a
protocol, we will have a document for it. Now it is looking more  
like there
is not much to say about it other than in the context of other  
documents.

What do we need to say about it outside the context of anything else  
such
as
UDP, Multicast, or TCP? Do we need a document on this? Should we  
just wrap
it into another document? Does anyone care what NAT's do with ping?
Well, there are basically two types of icmp messages

So I see no reason why it should be merged into TCP/UDP documents.  It
shold be an entirely seperate document only describing ICMP  
translation
requirements.

Thanks, Cullen
--  
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>                
http://www.gnumonks.org/
====================================================================== 
======
Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support it your  
lifetime

=====