RFC 6918

Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types

📅 published April 2013, from ietf

RFC 6918: Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types 🎀

okay so this is RFC 6918 and it dropped in April 2013 💖 It's on the Standards Track, which means it's an actual IETF standard doc, not just vibes. The authors are F. Gont (UTN-FRH / SI6 Networks) and C. Pignataro (Cisco Systems). It's ISSN 2070-1721 if you wanna look it up 🦋 It obsoletes RFC 1788 and updates RFC 792 and RFC 950, so it's giving full ICMPv4 cleanup arc 💅

Abstract ✨

ngl, a bunch of ICMPv4 message types are basically dead in real life, but nobody ever officially said so 💀 This doc finally deprecates those types, which cleans up the corresponding IANA registry 🧹 It also updates RFC 792 and RFC 950, obsoletes RFC 1788, and asks the RFC Editor to change RFC 1788's status 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 got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further info on Internet Standards is in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Info about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to send feedback on it is at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6918 🔗

Copyright (c) 2013 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, because 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 they are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents 🧚

1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  2.  Discussion of Deprecated ICMPv4 Message Types . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.1.  Alternate Host Address (Type 6)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.2.  Information Request (Type 15)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.3.  Information Reply (Type 16)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.4.  Address Mask Request (Type 17)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.5.  Address Mask Reply (Type 18)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.6.  Traceroute (Type 30)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    2.7.  Datagram Conversion Error (Type 31) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    2.8.  Mobile Host Redirect (Type 32)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    2.9.  IPv6 Where-Are-You (Type 33)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    2.10. IPv6 I-Am-Here (Type 34)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    2.11. Mobile Registration Request (Type 35) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    2.12. Mobile Registration Reply (Type 36) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    2.13. Domain Name Request (Type 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    2.14. Domain Name Reply (Type 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
    2.15. SKIP (Type 39)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  4.  Changing the Status of RFC 1788 to Historic . . . . . . . . . . 6
  5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
  6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
  7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
    7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
    7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Introduction 🦋

A bunch of ICMPv4 [RFC0792] message types have been specified over the years. A number of these have become obsolete in practice, but nobody ever formally deprecated them 😭 This document deprecates those types, which is basically "cleaning up" the corresponding IANA registry 🧹 It also updates RFC 792 and RFC 950, obsoletes RFC 1788, and asks the RFC Editor to change RFC 1788's status to Historic.

Section 2 goes through each of the obsoleted ICMPv4 messages, and Section 4 handles the RFC 1788 status change 📜

2. Discussion of Deprecated ICMPv4 Message Types 🍓

Here's the tea on each deprecated type. The details come from publicly available info and/or whatever the person who requested the assignment provided 🫶

2.1. Alternate Host Address (Type 6) 🌙

Tbh there's no publicly available info about this one 🙈

2.2. Information Request (Type 15) 🌷

This one is specified in [RFC0792]. But other mechanisms (like DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded it for host configuration, so it's lowkey been replaced 💅

2.3. Information Reply (Type 16) 🌼

This one is specified in [RFC0792] too. Same story: other mechanisms (like DHCP [RFC2131]) have superseded it for host configuration 🫠

2.4. Address Mask Request (Type 17) 🎀

This one is specified in [RFC0950] and was meant to give you a way to get the subnet mask. But DHCP [RFC2131] and other mechanisms have superseded it for host configuration, so it's retired now 👑

2.5. Address Mask Reply (Type 18) 🩷

Same vibe as Type 17! Specified in [RFC0950], meant for getting the subnet mask, and superseded for host configuration by DHCP [RFC2131] and friends ✨

2.6. Traceroute (Type 30) 🗺️

This one is specified in [RFC1393] and was meant to be an alternative way to discover the path to a destination system. It was never widely deployed 😬 [RFC1393] got its status changed to Historic by [RFC6814], and the option it relies on (Traceroute, Type 82) was formally obsoleted by [RFC6814] too. Bye bye 👋

2.7. Datagram Conversion Error (Type 31) 🧩

This one was originally meant to report conversion errors in the TP/IX [RFC1475] protocol. But TP/IX was never widely implemented or deployed, and [RFC1475] is Historic now 🕰️

2.8. Mobile Host Redirect (Type 32) 📡

This one was originally specified as part of an experimental protocol for IP Mobile Hosts [CMU-MOBILE]. It was never widely implemented or deployed, so no tears here 🥲

2.9. IPv6 Where-Are-You (Type 33) 🧚‍♀️

This one was originally specified in [SIMPSON-DISCOV] to identify adjacent IPv6 nodes. It was never widely deployed or implemented 💀

2.10. IPv6 I-Am-Here (Type 34) 🦄

Twin of Type 33! Originally specified in [SIMPSON-DISCOV] for identifying adjacent IPv6 nodes. It was never widely deployed or implemented either 🙃

2.11. Mobile Registration Request (Type 35) 🚀

This one was originally meant for transparent routing of IPv6 datagrams to Mobile Nodes [SIMPSON-MOBILITY]. It was never widely deployed or implemented, so it's giving "never happened" 🫥

2.12. Mobile Registration Reply (Type 36) 🌊

Partner in crime with Type 35! Also meant for transparent routing of IPv6 datagrams to Mobile Nodes [SIMPSON-MOBILITY], and also never widely deployed or implemented 💤

2.13. Domain Name Request (Type 37) 🔍

This one was originally specified in [RFC1788] to learn the Fully Qualified Domain Name tied to an IP address. It was never widely deployed or implemented, periodt 💅

2.14. Domain Name Reply (Type 38) 🪄

Matching Type 37! Originally specified in [RFC1788] for learning the Fully Qualified Domain Name associated with an IP address. Also never widely deployed or implemented 🥀

2.15. SKIP (Type 39) 🐚

This one was originally specified in [SKIP-ADP] for informing supported capabilities in the SKIP [SKIP] protocol. It was never widely deployed or implemented, so it's officially on the way out 👋🌈

7.2. Informative References 📚

these are the extra reads for the nerds who want the full backstory 🤓💅

  • [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.
  • [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.

Authors' Addresses 🎀

meet the authors who made this happen, they're literally the reason we have any of this 🫶

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.com
📦 where this page comes from