Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           F. GontRequest for Comments: 6918                        UTN-FRH / SI6 NetworksObsoletes:1788                                             C. PignataroUpdates:792,950                                          Cisco SystemsCategory: Standards Track                                     April 2013ISSN: 2070-1721Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message TypesAbstract   A number of ICMPv4 message types have become obsolete in practice,   but have never been formally deprecated.  This document deprecates   such ICMPv4 message types, thus cleaning up the corresponding IANA   registry.  Additionally, it updatesRFC 792 andRFC 950, obsoletesRFC 1788, and requests the RFC Editor to change the status ofRFC1788 to Historic.Status of This Memo   This is an Internet Standards Track document.   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has   received public review and has been approved for publication by the   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on   Internet Standards is available inSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6918.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (http://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 and restrictions with respect   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the Simplified BSD License.Gont & Pignataro             Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 6918            Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages          April 2013Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  Discussion of Deprecated ICMPv4 Message Types . . . . . . . . .32.1.  Alternate Host Address (Type 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.2.  Information Request (Type 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.3.  Information Reply (Type 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.4.  Address Mask Request (Type 17)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.5.  Address Mask Reply (Type 18)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.6.  Traceroute (Type 30)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.7.  Datagram Conversion Error (Type 31) . . . . . . . . . . . .42.8.  Mobile Host Redirect (Type 32)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.9.  IPv6 Where-Are-You (Type 33)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.10. IPv6 I-Am-Here (Type 34)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.11. Mobile Registration Request (Type 35) . . . . . . . . . . .42.12. Mobile Registration Reply (Type 36) . . . . . . . . . . . .42.13. Domain Name Request (Type 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.14. Domain Name Reply (Type 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52.15. SKIP (Type 39)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.  Changing the Status ofRFC 1788 to Historic . . . . . . . . . .65.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.  Introduction   A number of ICMPv4 [RFC0792] message types have been specified over   the years.  A number of these message types have become obsolete in   practice, but have never been formally deprecated.  This document   deprecates such ICMPv4 message types, "cleaning up" the corresponding   IANA registry.  Additionally, it updatesRFC 792 andRFC 950,   obsoletesRFC 1788, and requests the RFC Editor to change the status   ofRFC 1788 to Historic.Section 2 discusses each of the obsoleted ICMPv4 messages.Section 4   requests the RFC Editor to change the status ofRFC 1788 to Historic.Gont & Pignataro             Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 6918            Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages          April 20132.  Discussion of Deprecated ICMPv4 Message Types   The following subsections discuss the details of those ICMPv4 message   types being deprecated, based on publicly available information   and/or information provided by the requester of the corresponding   assignment.2.1.  Alternate Host Address (Type 6)   There is no publicly available information about this message type.2.2.  Information Request (Type 15)   This message type is specified in [RFC0792].  However, other   mechanisms (such as DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded this message type   for the purpose of host configuration.2.3.  Information Reply (Type 16)   This message type is specified in [RFC0792].  However, other   mechanisms (such as DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded this message type   for the purpose of host configuration.2.4.  Address Mask Request (Type 17)   This message type is specified in [RFC0950] and was meant to provide   a means to obtain the subnet mask.  However, other mechanisms (such   as DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded this message type for the purpose   of host configuration.2.5.  Address Mask Reply (Type 18)   This message type is specified in [RFC0950] and was meant to provide   a means to obtain the subnet mask.  However, other mechanisms (such   as DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded this message type for the purpose   of host configuration.2.6.  Traceroute (Type 30)   This message type is specified in [RFC1393] and was meant to provide   an alternative means to discover the path to a destination system.   This message type has never been widely deployed.  The status of   [RFC1393] has been changed to Historic by [RFC6814], and the   corresponding option this message type relies on (Traceroute, Type   82) has been formally obsoleted by [RFC6814].Gont & Pignataro             Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 6918            Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages          April 20132.7.  Datagram Conversion Error (Type 31)   This message type was originally meant to report conversion errors in   the TP/IX [RFC1475] protocol.  However, TP/IX was never widely   implemented or deployed, and the status of [RFC1475] is Historic.2.8.  Mobile Host Redirect (Type 32)   This message type was originally specified as part of an experimental   protocol for IP Mobile Hosts [CMU-MOBILE].  However, it was never   widely implemented or deployed.2.9.  IPv6 Where-Are-You (Type 33)   This message type was originally specified in [SIMPSON-DISCOV] for   the purpose of identification of adjacent IPv6 nodes.  It was never   widely deployed or implemented.2.10.  IPv6 I-Am-Here (Type 34)   This message type was originally specified in [SIMPSON-DISCOV] for   the purpose of identification of adjacent IPv6 nodes.  It was never   widely deployed or implemented.2.11.  Mobile Registration Request (Type 35)   This message type was originally meant for transparent routing of   IPv6 datagrams to Mobile Nodes [SIMPSON-MOBILITY].  It was never   widely deployed or implemented.2.12.  Mobile Registration Reply (Type 36)   This message type was originally meant for transparent routing of   IPv6 datagrams to Mobile Nodes [SIMPSON-MOBILITY].  It was never   widely deployed or implemented.2.13.  Domain Name Request (Type 37)   This message type was originally specified in [RFC1788] for the   purpose of learning the Fully Qualified Domain Name associated with   an IP address.  This message type was never widely deployed or   implemented.Gont & Pignataro             Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 6918            Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages          April 20132.14.  Domain Name Reply (Type 38)   This message type was originally specified in [RFC1788] for the   purpose of learning the Fully Qualified Domain Name associated with   an IP address.  This message type was never widely deployed or   implemented.2.15.  SKIP (Type 39)   This message type was originally specified in [SKIP-ADP] for   informing supported capabilities in the SKIP [SKIP] protocol.  This   message type was never widely deployed or implemented.3.  IANA Considerations   The "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Parameters" registry   [IANA-ICMP] contains the list of the currently assigned ICMP message   Types.   This document formally deprecates the following ICMP message Types   and requests IANA to mark them as such in the corresponding registry   [IANA-ICMP]:   o  Alternate Host Address (Type 6)   o  Information Request (Type 15)   o  Information Reply (Type 16)   o  Address Mask Request (Type 17)   o  Address Mask Reply (Type 18)   o  Traceroute (Type 30)   o  Datagram Conversion Error (Type 31)   o  Mobile Host Redirect (Type 32)   o  IPv6 Where-Are-You (Type 33)   o  IPv6 I-Am-Here (Type 34)   o  Mobile Registration Request (Type 35)   o  Mobile Registration Reply (Type 36)   o  Domain Name Request (Type 37)Gont & Pignataro             Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 6918            Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages          April 2013   o  Domain Name Reply (Type 38)   o  SKIP (Type 39)      The ICMPv4 Source Quench Message (Type 4) has already been      deprecated by [RFC6633].4.  Changing the Status ofRFC 1788 to Historic   This document requests the RFC Editor to change the status of   [RFC1788] to Historic.      Both [RFC1385] and [RFC1393] already have a status of Historic.      The status of other RFCs (such as [RFC0792] and [RFC0950]) is not      changed since other parts of these documents are still current.5.  Security Considerations   This document does not modify the security properties of the ICMPv4   message types being deprecated.  However, formally deprecating these   message types serves as a basis for, e.g., filtering these packets.6.  Acknowledgments   The authors would like to thank Ron Bonica and Joel Halpern for their   guidance.7.  References7.1.  Normative References   [RFC0792]    Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,RFC 792, September 1981.   [RFC6814]    Pignataro, C. and F. Gont, "Formally Deprecating Some                IPv4 Options",RFC 6814, November 2012.7.2.  Informative References   [CMU-MOBILE] Johnson, D., "Transparent Internet Routing for IP Mobile                Hosts", Work in Progress, July 1993.   [IANA-ICMP]  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Internet Control                Message Protocol (ICMP) Parameters", September 2012,                <http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters>.   [RFC0950]    Mogul, J. and J. Postel, "Internet Standard Subnetting                Procedure", STD 5,RFC 950, August 1985.Gont & Pignataro             Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 6918            Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages          April 2013   [RFC1385]    Wang, Z., "EIP: The Extended Internet Protocol",RFC 1385, November 1992.   [RFC1393]    Malkin, G., "Traceroute Using an IP Option",RFC 1393,                January 1993.   [RFC1475]    Ullmann, R., "TP/IX: The Next Internet",RFC 1475,                June 1993.   [RFC1788]    Simpson, W., "ICMP Domain Name Messages",RFC 1788,                April 1995.   [RFC2131]    Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",RFC 2131, March 1997.   [RFC6633]    Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",RFC 6633, May 2012.   [SIMPSON-DISCOV]                Simpson, W., "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery -- ICMP Message                Formats", Work in Progress, January 1995.   [SIMPSON-MOBILITY]                Simpson, W.,"IPv6 Mobility Support", Work in Progress,                November 1994.   [SKIP]       Aziz, A., Markson, T., and H. Prafullchandra, "Simple                Key-Management For Internet Protocols (SKIP)", Work                in Progress, December 1995.   [SKIP-ADP]   Aziz, A., Markson, T., and H. Prafullchandra, "SKIP                Algorithm Discovery Protocol", Work in Progress,                December 1995.Gont & Pignataro             Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 6918            Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Messages          April 2013Authors' Addresses   Fernando Gont   UTN-FRH / SI6 Networks   Evaristo Carriego 2644   Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires  1706   Argentina   Phone: +54 11 4650 8472   EMail: fgont@si6networks.com   URI:http://www.si6networks.com   Carlos Pignataro   Cisco Systems   7200-12 Kit Creek Road   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709   US   EMail: cpignata@cisco.comGont & Pignataro             Standards Track                    [Page 8]