[ippm] Re: ICMPv6 Loopback Draft - New Version

Hi Sebastian,

Thanks for the feedback.
Regarding IPv4, I believe that technically speaking ICMPv6 Loopback
could be similarly defined in ICMPv4. However, please note that one of
the main benefits of ICMPv6 Loopback is that the reply includes the
IPv6 extensions of the original ICMPv6 request. This would be slightly
less relevant to IPv4, as IPv4 options are not as commonly used.

Cheers,
Tal.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 10:36 AM Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Tal,
>
> Attraktive feature, offering a better defined alternative to playing TTL games to get some parts of the received forward IP headers back.
>
> quick question, what about IPv4? Given that IPv4 will be with us for the foreseeable future it would be IMHO a good idea trying to keep ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 better aligned. Are there any obvious reasons (factual or procedural) I might be missing why restricting this to ICMPv6 is the best path forward?
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
> > On 4. Jun 2024, at 09:26, Tal Mizrahi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have uploaded a new version of the draft:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mzbc-ippm-transit-measurement-option/
> >
> > This version of the draft addresses the amplification issue that was
> > raised about previous versions of the draft.
> >
> > Please also note that we have a running demo of a utility called
> > ioam-ping which uses ICMPv6 Loopback messages:
> > https://github.com/talmi/IOAM-Ping-Demo
> >
> > Comments will be welcome.
> > Cheers,
> > Tal.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]