



6MAN Working Group                                                X. Min
Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
Updates: 4620, 4884 (if approved)                              G. Mirsky
Intended status: Standards Track                                Ericsson
Expires: 12 December 2025                                   10 June 2025


            IPv6 Query for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
               draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state-08

Abstract

   This document describes the application of the mechanism of
   discovering In-situ OAM (IOAM) capabilities, described in RFC 9359
   "Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities", in
   IPv6 networks.  IPv6 Node IOAM Request uses the IPv6 Node Information
   messages, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the
   enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating
   node.

   This document updates RFCs 4620 and 4884.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 December 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights



Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Node IOAM Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Examples of the Node IOAM Request . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Node IOAM Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  IOAM Capabilities Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Examples of the Node IOAM Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Code Field Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Updates to RFC 4884 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   IPv6 encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) data is defined in
   [RFC9486], which uses the IPv6 hop-by-hop and destination options to
   carry IOAM data fields ([RFC9197], [RFC9326]).

   As specified in [RFC9359], the echo request/reply can be used by the
   IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities at
   the IOAM transit and decapsulating nodes.

   As specified in [RFC4443], the Internet Control Message Protocol for
   IPv6 (ICMPv6) is an integral part of IPv6.  ICMPv6 messages include
   error messages and informational messages.  [RFC4884] defines ICMPv6
   Extension Structure by which multi-part ICMPv6 error messages are
   supported.  [RFC8335] updates [RFC4884] by adding two ICMPv6
   informational messages, ICMPv6 Extended Echo Request message and
   ICMPv6 Extended Echo Reply message, to the supporting list of ICMPv6
   Extension Structure.  Both [RFC4884] and [RFC8335] provide sound
   principles and examples on extending ICMPv6 messages.








Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


   As specified in [RFC4620], two types of IPv6 Node Information
   messages, the Node Information Query (or NI Query) and the Node
   Information Reply (or NI Reply), also known as two ICMPv6
   informational messages, are used for a Querier node to query
   information of a Responder node.

   This document describes the IPv6 Node IOAM Query functionality, which
   uses the IPv6 Node Information messages, allowing the IOAM
   encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each
   IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node.

   The IOAM encapsulating node sends an NI Query to each IOAM transit
   and decapsulating node.  Upon receiving the query, each node executes
   access control procedures.  If access is granted, the node returns an
   NI Reply indicating its enabled IOAM capabilities.  The NI Reply
   contains an ICMPv6 Extension Structure customized to this message,
   and the ICMPv6 Extension Structure contains one or more IOAM
   Capabilities Objects.

   Before the IOAM encapsulating node sends the NI Query, it must know
   the IPv6 address of each node along the transport path of the data
   packet to which IOAM data will be added.  This can be achieved by
   executing an ICMPv6/UDP traceroute or by provisioning an explicit
   path at the IOAM encapsulating node.  In an Equal-Cost Multipath
   (ECMP) scenario, the same values in any ECMP-affecting fields (e.g.,
   the 3-tuple of the Flow Label, Source Address, and Destination
   Address fields as per [RFC6437]) of the IOAM data packets MUST be
   populated in the NI Query, ensuring fate sharing between the NI Query
   and the IOAM data packets.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Node IOAM Request

   The Node IOAM Request message is encapsulated in an IPv6 header
   [RFC8200], like any ICMPv6 message.

   The Node IOAM Request message has the following format:







Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |     Code      |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Qtype             |             Flags             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                             Nonce                             +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .                  List of IOAM Namespace-IDs                   .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 1: Node IOAM Request Message

   IPv6 Header fields:

   *  Source Address: The Source Address identifies the IOAM
      encapsulating node.  It MUST be a valid IPv6 unicast address.

   *  Destination Address: The Destination Address identifies the IOAM
      transit or decapsulating node.  It MUST be a valid IPv6 unicast
      address.

   ICMPv6 fields:

   *  Type: NI Query.  The value is 139 as allocated for [RFC4620].

   *  Code: The value is (TBD1).  The Data field contains a list of IOAM
      Namespace-IDs, which are the subject of this query.

   *  Checksum: The ICMPv6 checksum.

   *  Qtype: The value is (TBD2).  Which indicates the NI Query is a
      node IOAM capabilities query.

   *  Flags: The same as defined in [RFC4620].  Flags are Qtype-
      specific, the NI Query Qtype used in this document has no defined
      flags.

   *  Nonce: The same as defined in [RFC4620].

   *  Data: Following the NI Query header, the Data field is a List of
      IOAM Namespace-IDs, which is also called IOAM Capabilities Query
      Container payload in Section 3.1 of [RFC9359].



Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


3.1.  Examples of the Node IOAM Request

   The format of a Node IOAM Request can vary from deployment to
   deployment.

   In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the Node
   IOAM Request is depicted as the following:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Qtype             |             Flags             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                             Nonce                             +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |          Zero-padded          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 2: Node IOAM Request of the Default IOAM Namespace

   In a deployment where two Namespace-IDs (Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-
   ID2) are used, the Node IOAM Request is depicted as the following:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Qtype             |             Flags             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                             Nonce                             +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID1         |         Namespace-ID2         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 3: Node IOAM Request of the Two IOAM Namespaces

   When a Node IOAM Request message is received, the length of the
   message is determined by the Payload Length field in the IPv6 Header,
   as specified in [RFC8200].





Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


4.  Node IOAM Reply

   The Node IOAM Reply message is encapsulated in an IPv6 header
   [RFC8200], like any ICMPv6 message.

   The Node IOAM Reply message has the following format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |     Code      |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Qtype             |             Flags             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                             Nonce                             +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .               List of IOAM Capabilities Objects               .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 4: Node IOAM Reply Message

   IPv6 Header fields:

   *  Source Address: Copied from the Destination Address field of the
      invoking Node IOAM Request packet.

   *  Destination Address: Copied from the Source Address field of the
      invoking Node IOAM Request packet.

   ICMPv6 fields:

   *  Type: NI Reply.  The value is 140 as allocated for [RFC4620].

   *  Code: The values are (TBD3) No Matched Namespace-ID, and (TBD4)
      Exceed the minimum IPv6 MTU.  See Section 5 for details.

   *  Checksum: The ICMPv6 checksum.

   *  Qtype: Copied from the Qtype field of the invoking Node IOAM
      Request.

   *  Flags: The same as defined in [RFC4620].  Flags are Qtype-
      specific, the NI Reply Qtype used in this document has no defined
      flags.



Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


   *  Nonce: Copied from the Nonce field of the invoking Node IOAM
      Request.

   *  Data: Following the NI Reply header, the Data field is a List of
      IOAM Capabilities Objects, which is also called IOAM Capabilities
      Response Container payload in Section 3.2 of [RFC9359].  Section 7
      of [RFC4884] defines the ICMP Extension Structure.  As per RFC
      4884, the Extension Structure contains exactly one Extension
      Header followed by one or more objects.  When applied to the Node
      IOAM Reply message, the ICMP Extension Structure MUST contain one
      or more IOAM Capabilities Objects.  Also note that
      [I-D.ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len] updates [RFC4884] by adding
      a Length field to the ICMP Extension Header.

4.1.  IOAM Capabilities Objects

   All ICMPv6 IOAM Capabilities Objects are encapsulated in a Node IOAM
   Reply message.

   Each ICMPv6 IOAM Capabilities Object has the following format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .                IOAM Capabilities Object Payload               .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 5: IOAM Capabilities Object

   Object fields:

   *  Class-Num: IOAM Capabilities Objects.  The values are listed as
      the following:

      Value         Object Name
      -----         -----------
      TBD5          IOAM Tracing Capabilities Object
      TBD6          IOAM Proof of Transit Capabilities Object
      TBD7          IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
      TBD8          IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
      TBD9          IOAM End-of-Domain Object

   *  C-Type: Values are listed as the following:




Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


      Class-Num     C-Type     C-Type Name
      ---------     ------     -----------
      TBD5          0          Reserved
                    1          Pre-allocated Tracing
      TBD6          0          Reserved
      TBD7          0          Reserved
      TBD8          0          Reserved
      TBD9          0          Reserved

   *  Length: Length of the object, measured in octets, including the
      Object Header and payload.

   *  Object payload: Following the IOAM Capabilities Object Header is
      the IOAM Capabilities Object payload, which is defined in Sections
      3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, and 3.2.6 of [RFC9359].

4.2.  Examples of the Node IOAM Reply

   The format of a Node IOAM Reply can vary from deployment to
   deployment.

   In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the IOAM
   Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities and the IOAM Proof of Transit
   Capabilities are enabled at the IOAM transit node that received a
   Node IOAM Request, the Node IOAM Reply is depicted as the following:


























Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Qtype             |             Flags             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                             Nonce                             +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Version|  Rsvd |     Length    |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |  Reserved   |W|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |          Ingress_MTU          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Ingress_if_id (short or wide format)         ......          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 6: Example 1 of the Node IOAM Reply

   In a deployment where two Namespace-IDs (Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-
   ID2) are used, for both Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-ID2 the IOAM Pre-
   allocated Tracing Capabilities and the IOAM Proof of Transit
   Capabilities are enabled at the IOAM transit node that received a
   Node IOAM Request, the Node IOAM Reply is depicted as the following:


















Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Qtype             |             Flags             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                             Nonce                             +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Version|  Rsvd |     Length    |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |  Reserved   |W|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID1         |          Ingress_MTU          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Ingress_if_id (short or wide format)         ......          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID1         | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |  Reserved   |W|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID2         |          Ingress_MTU          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Ingress_if_id (short or wide format)         ......          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID2         | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 7: Example 2 of the Node IOAM Reply

   In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the IOAM
   Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities, the IOAM Proof of Transit
   Capabilities, and the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities are enabled at
   the IOAM decapsulating node that received a Node IOAM Request, the
   Node IOAM Reply is depicted as the following:






Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Qtype             |             Flags             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                             Nonce                             +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Version|  Rsvd |     Length    |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |  Reserved   |W|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |          Ingress_MTU          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Ingress_if_id (short or wide format)         ......          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Length            |   Class-Num   |   C-Type      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |         IOAM-E2E-Type         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |TSF|         Reserved          |           Reserved            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 8: Example 3 of the Node IOAM Reply

   When a Node IOAM Reply message is received, the length of the message
   is determined by the Payload Length field in the IPv6 Header, as
   specified in [RFC8200].

5.  Code Field Processing

   The Code field in the Node IOAM Reply MUST be set to (TBD3) No
   Matched Namespace-ID if any of the following conditions apply:

   *  The Node IOAM Request does not include any Namespace-ID.

   *  None of the contained list of IOAM Namespace-IDs is recognized.

   *  None of the contained list of IOAM Namespace-IDs is enabled.



Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


   The Code field in the Node IOAM Reply MUST be set to (TBD4) Exceed
   the minimum IPv6 MTU if the formatted NI Reply packet exceeds the
   minimum IPv6 MTU (i.e., 1280 octets).  In this case, all objects MUST
   be stripped before forwarding the Node IOAM Reply to its destination.

6.  Updates to RFC 4884

   Section 4.6 of [RFC4884] provides a list of extensible ICMP messages
   (i.e., messages that can carry the ICMP Extension Structure).  This
   document adds the IPv6 Node Information Reply message to that list.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests the following IANA actions:

   *  Add the following Code to the "Type 139 - ICMP Node Information
      Query" sub-registry:

      -  (TBD1) The Data field contains a List of IOAM Namespace-IDs
         which is the Subject of this Query

   *  Add the following to the "Qtypes" registry:

      -  TBD2 Node IOAM Capabilities

   *  Add the following Codes to the "Type 140 - ICMP Node Information
      Response" sub-registry:

      -  (TBD3) No Matched Namespace-ID

      -  (TBD4) Exceed the minimum IPv6 MTU

   *  Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
      Sub-types" registry:

      -  (TBD5) IOAM Tracing Capabilities Object

   *  Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD5 - IOAM
      Tracing Capabilities Object" sub-registry:

      -  (0) Reserved

      -  (1) Pre-allocated Tracing

   *  Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
      Sub-types" registry:

      -  (TBD6) IOAM Proof of Transit Capabilities Object



Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


   *  Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD6 - IOAM
      Proof of Transit Capabilities Object" sub-registry:

      -  (0) Reserved

   *  Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
      Sub-types" registry:

      -  (TBD7) IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object

   *  Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD7 - IOAM
      Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object" sub-registry:

      -  (0) Reserved

   *  Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
      Sub-types" registry:

      -  (TBD8) IOAM DEX Capabilities Object

   *  Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD8 - IOAM
      DEX Capabilities Object" sub-registry:

      -  (0) Reserved

   *  Add the following to the "ICMP Extension Object Classes and Class
      Sub-types" registry:

      -  (TBD9) IOAM End-of-Domain Object

   *  Add the following C-types to the "Sub-types - Class TBD9 - IOAM
      End-of-Domain Object" sub-registry:

      -  (0) Reserved

   All codes mentioned above are assigned on a First Come First Serve
   (FCFS) basis with a range of 0-255.

8.  Security Considerations

   Security issues discussed in [RFC4620] and [RFC9359] apply to this
   document.

   This document recommends using IP Authentication Header [RFC4302] or
   IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC4303] to provide
   integrity protection for IOAM capabilities information.





Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


   This document recommends using IP Encapsulating Security Payload
   Header [RFC4303] to provide privacy protection for IOAM capabilities
   information.

   This document recommends that the network operators establish
   policies that restrict access to IPv6 Node IOAM Query functionality.
   In order to enforce these policies, nodes that support IPv6 Node IOAM
   Query functionality MUST support the following configuration options:

   *  Enable/disable IPv6 Node IOAM Query functionality.  By default,
      IPv6 Node IOAM Query functionality is disabled.

   *  Define enabled Namespace-IDs.  By default, all Namespace-IDs
      except the default one (i.e., Namespace-ID 0x0000) are disabled.

   *  For each enabled Namespace-ID, define the prefixes from which Node
      IOAM Request messages are permitted.

   In order to protect local resources, implementations SHOULD rate-
   limit incoming Node IOAM Request messages.

   Considering the packet size of the Node IOAM Reply could be much
   larger than that of the Node IOAM Request, to mitigate the potential
   amplification attack by using the Node IOAM Request with a spoofed
   source address, which is similar to the amplification attack by
   sending an ICMPv6 ECHO_REQUEST to ff02::1 with a spoofed source
   address (refer to Section 2.3.5 of [RFC9099]), an implementation that
   supports this specification MUST support an option of padding a Node
   IOAM Request packet to the Path MTU or the minimum IPv6 MTU
   [RFC8200], which can ensure that the Node IOAM Reply packet would not
   be larger than the invoking Node IOAM Request packet.  The network
   operators can choose to enforce the padding option or not in their
   networks.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Eric Vyncke and Erik Kline for
   their valuable suggestions on using IPv6 Node Information Queries as
   the basis.

   The authors would like to acknowledge Bob Hinden for his valuable
   suggestions on the ICMPv6 message format.

   The authors would like to acknowledge Chongfeng Xie, Zhenqiang Li,
   David Lamparter, and Daniel King for their review and helpful
   comments.

10.  References



Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC4620]  Crawford, M. and B. Haberman, Ed., "IPv6 Node Information
              Queries", RFC 4620, DOI 10.17487/RFC4620, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4620>.

   [RFC4884]  Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
              "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9359]  Min, X., Mirsky, G., and L. Bo, "Echo Request/Reply for
              Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities", RFC 9359,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9359, April 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9359>.

   [RFC9486]  Bhandari, S., Ed. and F. Brockners, Ed., "IPv6 Options for
              In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
              (IOAM)", RFC 9486, DOI 10.17487/RFC9486, September 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9486>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len]
              Bonica, R., hexiaoming, X., Min, X., and T. Mizrahi, "ICMP
              Extension Header Length Field", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-00,
              15 March 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-00>.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.



Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.

   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8335]  Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M.
              Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces",
              RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>.

   [RFC9099]  Vyncke, É., Chittimaneni, K., Kaeo, M., and E. Rey,
              "Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks",
              RFC 9099, DOI 10.17487/RFC9099, August 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9099>.

   [RFC9197]  Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
              Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
              and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
              May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.

   [RFC9326]  Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
              Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
              Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiao Min
   ZTE Corp.
   Nanjing
   China
   Phone: +86 18061680168
   Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn


   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   United States of America



Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      IPv6 Query for IOAM Capabilities           June 2025


   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


















































Min & Mirsky            Expires 12 December 2025               [Page 17]
