Without any hat, I agree with Bob. This I-D should eventually go to 6MAN WG though (with my AD hat)
-éric On 06/06/2023, 08:34, "Int-area on behalf of Bob Hinden" <int-area-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of bob.hin...@gmail.com <mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com>> wrote: Tal, I did a quick read of your draft. As noted in the draft this seems to be very similar to ICMPv6 Echo/Echo Reply. The change is to include the request packet in the response, not just the payload. While I don’t have any real opinion on the need for this, I do think it would be a lot simpler if the draft just defined a new Code field value for Echo Request/Reply that specified this behavior. Currently the Code field is set to zero, another value could specify this behavior. Deployment might be easier as I suspect ICMPv6 types other than the current definitions will be filtered in many places. Bob > On Jun 6, 2023, at 4:54 AM, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi....@gmail.com > <mailto:tal.mizrahi....@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > New draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcb-intarea-icmpv6-loopback/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcb-intarea-icmpv6-loopback/> > > We have posted a new draft that proposes two new ICMPv6 message types: > Loopback Request and Reply. > ICMPv6 Loopback is very similar to Echo, except that after a Loopback > Request is sent, its corresponding Reply includes as much of the IPv6 > Loopback Request packet as possible, including the IPv6 header and > IPv6 extension headers and options if they are present. > > We believe that ICMPv6 Loopback can be very useful for returning IPv6 > options that were included in Request packet back to the sender, > including for example sending IOAM [RFC 9197] data from the Request > back to the sender, sending the SRH [RFC 8754] of the Request back to > the sender, as well as for in-progress / future protocols such as > draft-filsfils-spring-path-tracing and draft-kumar-ippm-ifa. > > We would be happy for feedback, as well as suggestions about whether > the INT-AREA WG is the right place to discuss this draft. > > Cheers, > Tal. > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
