diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc1885.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1885.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc1885.txt | 1123 |
1 files changed, 1123 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1885.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1885.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0f5b836 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1885.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1123 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group A. Conta, Digital Equipment Corporation +Request for Comments: 1885 S. Deering, Xerox PARC +Category: Standards Track December 1995 + + + + + Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) + for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) + Specification + + + + +Status of this Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + + +Abstract + + + This document specifies a set of Internet Control Message Protocol + (ICMP) messages for use with version 6 of the Internet Protocol + (IPv6). The Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) messages + specified in STD 5, RFC 1112 have been merged into ICMP, for IPv6, + and are included in this document. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +Table of Contents + + + + 1. Introduction........................................3 + + 2. ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6)..............................3 + + 2.1 Message General Format.......................3 + + 2.2 Message Source Address Determination.........4 + + 2.3 Message Checksum Calculation.................5 + + 2.4 Message Processing Rules.....................5 + + 3. ICMPv6 Error Messages...............................8 + + 3.1 Destination Unreachable Message..............8 + + 3.2 Packet Too Big Message......................10 + + 3.3 Time Exceeded Message.......................11 + + 3.4 Parameter Problem Message...................12 + + 4. ICMPv6 Informational Messages......................14 + + 4.1 Echo Request Message........................14 + + 4.2 Echo Reply Message..........................15 + + 4.3 Group Membership Messages...................17 + + 5. References.........................................19 + + 6. Acknowledgements...................................19 + + 7. Security Considerations............................19 + + Authors' Addresses....................................20 + + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +1. Introduction + + The Internet Protocol, version 6 (IPv6) is a new version of IP. IPv6 + uses the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) as defined for IPv4 + [RFC-792], with a number of changes. The Internet Group Membership + Protocol (IGMP) specified for IPv4 [RFC-1112] has also been revised + and has been absorbed into ICMP for IPv6. The resulting protocol is + called ICMPv6, and has an IPv6 Next Header value of 58. + + This document describes the format of a set of control messages used + in ICMPv6. It does not describe the procedures for using these + messages to achieve functions like Path MTU discovery or multicast + group membership maintenance; such procedures are described in other + documents (e.g., [RFC-1112, RFC-1191]). Other documents may also + introduce additional ICMPv6 message types, such as Neighbor Discovery + messages [IPv6-DISC], subject to the general rules for ICMPv6 + messages given in section 2 of this document. + + Terminology defined in the IPv6 specification [IPv6] and the IPv6 + Routing and Addressing specification [IPv6-ADDR] applies to this + document as well. + + +2. ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) + + ICMPv6 is used by IPv6 nodes to report errors encountered in + processing packets, and to perform other internet-layer functions, + such as diagnostics (ICMPv6 "ping") and multicast membership + reporting. ICMPv6 is an integral part of IPv6 and MUST be fully + implemented by every IPv6 node. + + +2.1 Message General Format + + ICMPv6 messages are grouped into two classes: error messages and + informational messages. Error messages are identified as such by + having a zero in the high-order bit of their message Type field + values. Thus, error messages have message Types from 0 to 127; + informational messages have message Types from 128 to 255. + + This document defines the message formats for the following ICMPv6 + messages: + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + + ICMPv6 error messages: + + 1 Destination Unreachable (see section 3.1) + 2 Packet Too Big (see section 3.2) + 3 Time Exceeded (see section 3.3) + 4 Parameter Problem (see section 3.4) + + ICMPv6 informational messages: + + 128 Echo Request (see section 4.1) + 129 Echo Reply (see section 4.2) + 130 Group Membership Query (see section 4.3) + 131 Group Membership Report (see section 4.3) + 132 Group Membership Reduction (see section 4.3) + + + Every ICMPv6 message is preceded by an IPv6 header and zero or more + IPv6 extension headers. The ICMPv6 header is identified by a Next + Header value of 58 in the immediately preceding header. (NOTE: this + is different than the value used to identify ICMP for IPv4.) + + The ICMPv6 messages have the following general 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + + Message Body + + | | + + The type field indicates the type of the message. Its value + determines the format of the remaining data. + + The code field depends on the message type. It is used to create an + additional level of message granularity. + + The checksum field is used to detect data corruption in the ICMPv6 + message and parts of the IPv6 header. + + +2.2 Message Source Address Determination + + A node that sends an ICMPv6 message has to determine both the Source + and Destination IPv6 Addresses in the IPv6 header before calculating + the checksum. If the node has more than one unicast address, it must + choose the Source Address of the message as follows: + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + + (a) If the message is a response to a message sent to one of the + node's unicast addresses, the Source Address of the reply must + be that same address. + + (b) If the message is a response to a message sent to a multicast or + anycast group in which the node is a member, the Source Address + of the reply must be a unicast address belonging to the + interface on which the multicast or anycast packet was received. + + (c) If the message is a response to a message sent to an address + that does not belong to the node, the Source Address should be + that unicast address belonging to the node that will be most + helpful in diagnosing the error. For example, if the message is + a response to a packet forwarding action that cannot complete + successfully, the Source Address should be a unicast address + belonging to the interface on which the packet forwarding + failed. + + (d) Otherwise, the node's routing table must be examined to + determine which interface will be used to transmit the message + to its destination, and a unicast address belonging to that + interface must be used as the Source Address of the message. + + +2.3 Message Checksum Calculation + + The checksum is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement + sum of the entire ICMPv6 message starting with the ICMPv6 message + type field, prepended with a "pseudo-header" of IPv6 header fields, + as specified in [IPv6, section 8.1]. The Next Header value used in + the pseudo-header is 58. (NOTE: the inclusion of a pseudo-header in + the ICMPv6 checksum is a change from IPv4; see [IPv6] for the + rationale for this change.) + + For computing the checksum, the checksum field is set to zero. + + +2.4 Message Processing Rules + + Implementations MUST observe the following rules when processing + ICMPv6 messages (from [RFC-1122]): + + (a) If an ICMPv6 error message of unknown type is received, it MUST + be passed to the upper layer. + + (b) If an ICMPv6 informational message of unknown type is received, + it MUST be silently discarded. + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + + (c) Every ICMPv6 error message (type < 128) includes as much of the + IPv6 offending (invoking) packet (the packet that caused the + error) as will fit without making the error message packet + exceed 576 octets. + + (d) In those cases where the internet-layer protocol is required to + pass an ICMPv6 error message to the upper-layer protocol, the + upper-layer protocol type is extracted from the original packet + (contained in the body of the ICMPv6 error message) and used to + select the appropriate upper-layer protocol entity to handle the + error. + + If the original packet had an unusually large amount of + extension headers, it is possible that the upper-layer protocol + type may not be present in the ICMPv6 message, due to truncation + of the original packet to meet the 576-octet limit. In that + case, the error message is silently dropped after any IPv6-layer + processing. + + (e) An ICMPv6 error message MUST NOT be sent as a result of + receiving: + + (e.1) an ICMPv6 error message, or + + (e.2) a packet destined to an IPv6 multicast address (there are + two exceptions to this rule: (1) the Packet Too Big + Message - Section 3.2 - to allow Path MTU discovery to + work for IPv6 multicast, and (2) the Parameter Problem + Message, Code 2 - Section 3.4 - reporting an unrecognized + IPv6 option that has the Option Type highest-order two + bits set to 10), or + + (e.3) a packet sent as a link-layer multicast, (the exception + from e.2 applies to this case too), or + + (e.4) a packet sent as a link-layer broadcast, (the exception + from e.2 applies to this case too), or + + (e.5) a packet whose source address does not uniquely identify + a single node -- e.g., the IPv6 Unspecified Address, an + IPv6 multicast address, or an address known by the ICMP + message sender to be an IPv6 anycast address. + + (f) Finally, to each sender of an erroneous data packet, an IPv6 + node MUST limit the rate of ICMPv6 error messages sent, in order + to limit the bandwidth and forwarding costs incurred by the + error messages when a generator of erroneous packets does not + respond to those error messages by ceasing its transmissions. + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + + There are a variety of ways of implementing the rate-limiting + function, for example: + + (f.1) Timer-based - for example, limiting the rate of + transmission of error messages to a given source, or to + any source, to at most once every T milliseconds. + + (f.2) Bandwidth-based - for example, limiting the rate at + which error messages are sent from a particular interface + to some fraction F of the attached link's bandwidth. + + The limit parameters (e.g., T or F in the above examples) MUST + be configurable for the node, with a conservative default value + (e.g., T = 1 second, NOT 0 seconds, or F = 2 percent, NOT 100 + percent). + + The following sections describe the message formats for the above + ICMPv6 messages. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +3. ICMPv6 Error Messages + +3.1 Destination Unreachable Message + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Unused | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | As much of invoking packet | + + as will fit without the ICMPv6 packet + + | exceeding 576 octets | + + IPv6 Fields: + + Destination Address + + Copied from the Source Address field of the invoking + packet. + + ICMPv6 Fields: + + Type 1 + + Code 0 - no route to destination + 1 - communication with destination + administratively prohibited + 2 - not a neighbor + 3 - address unreachable + 4 - port unreachable + + Unused This field is unused for all code values. + It must be initialized to zero by the sender + and ignored by the receiver. + Description + + A Destination Unreachable message SHOULD be generated by a router, or + by the IPv6 layer in the originating node, in response to a packet + that cannot be delivered to its destination address for reasons other + than congestion. (An ICMPv6 message MUST NOT be generated if a + packet is dropped due to congestion.) + + If the reason for the failure to deliver is lack of a matching entry + in the forwarding node's routing table, the Code field is set to 0 + (NOTE: this error can occur only in nodes that do not hold a "default + route" in their routing tables). + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + + If the reason for the failure to deliver is administrative + prohibition, e.g., a "firewall filter", the Code field is set to 1. + + If the reason for the failure to deliver is that the next destination + address in the Routing header is not a neighbor of the processing + node but the "strict" bit is set for that address, then the Code + field is set to 2. + + If there is any other reason for the failure to deliver, e.g., + inability to resolve the IPv6 destination address into a + corresponding link address, or a link-specific problem of some sort, + then the Code field is set to 3. + + A destination node SHOULD send a Destination Unreachable message with + Code 4 in response to a packet for which the transport protocol + (e.g., UDP) has no listener, if that transport protocol has no + alternative means to inform the sender. + + Upper layer notification + + A node receiving the ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message MUST + notify the upper-layer protocol. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +3.2 Packet Too Big Message + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | MTU | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | As much of invoking packet | + + as will fit without the ICMPv6 packet + + | exceeding 576 octets | + + IPv6 Fields: + + Destination Address + + Copied from the Source Address field of the invoking + packet. + + ICMPv6 Fields: + + Type 2 + + Code 0 + + MTU The Maximum Transmission Unit of the next-hop link. + + Description + + A Packet Too Big MUST be sent by a router in response to a packet + that it cannot forward because the packet is larger than the MTU of + the outgoing link. The information in this message is used as part + of the Path MTU Discovery process [RFC-1191]. + + Sending a Packet Too Big Message makes an exception to one of the + rules of when to send an ICMPv6 error message, in that unlike other + messages, it is sent in response to a packet received with an IPv6 + multicast destination address, or a link-layer multicast or link- + layer broadcast address. + + Upper layer notification + + An incoming Packet Too Big message MUST be passed to the upper-layer + protocol. + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +3.3 Time Exceeded Message + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Unused | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | As much of invoking packet | + + as will fit without the ICMPv6 packet + + | exceeding 576 octets | + + IPv6 Fields: + + Destination Address + Copied from the Source Address field of the invoking + packet. + + ICMPv6 Fields: + + Type 3 + + Code 0 - hop limit exceeded in transit + + 1 - fragment reassembly time exceeded + + Unused This field is unused for all code values. + It must be initialized to zero by the sender + and ignored by the receiver. + + Description + + If a router receives a packet with a Hop Limit of zero, or a router + decrements a packet's Hop Limit to zero, it MUST discard the packet + and send an ICMPv6 Time Exceeded message with Code 0 to the source of + the packet. This indicates either a routing loop or too small an + initial Hop Limit value. + + The router sending an ICMPv6 Time Exceeded message with Code 0 SHOULD + consider the receiving interface of the packet as the interface on + which the packet forwarding failed in following rule (d) for + selecting the Source Address of the message. + + Upper layer notification + + An incoming Time Exceeded message MUST be passed to the upper-layer + protocol. + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +3.4 Parameter Problem Message + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Pointer | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | As much of invoking packet | + + as will fit without the ICMPv6 packet + + | exceeding 576 octets | + + IPv6 Fields: + + Destination Address + + Copied from the Source Address field of the invoking + packet. + + ICMPv6 Fields: + + Type 4 + + Code 0 - erroneous header field encountered + + 1 - unrecognized Next Header type encountered + + 2 - unrecognized IPv6 option encountered + + Pointer Identifies the octet offset within the + invoking packet where the error was detected. + + The pointer will point beyond the end of the ICMPv6 + packet if the field in error is beyond what can fit + in the 576-byte limit of an ICMPv6 error message. + + Description + + If an IPv6 node processing a packet finds a problem with a field in + the IPv6 header or extension headers such that it cannot complete + processing the packet, it MUST discard the packet and SHOULD send an + ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message to the packet's source, indicating + the type and location of the problem. + + The pointer identifies the octet of the original packet's header + where the error was detected. For example, an ICMPv6 message with + Type field = 4, Code field = 1, and Pointer field = 40 would indicate + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + + that the IPv6 extension header following the IPv6 header of the + original packet holds an unrecognized Next Header field value. + + Upper layer notification + + A node receiving this ICMPv6 message MUST notify the upper-layer + protocol. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +4. ICMPv6 Informational Messages + +4.1 Echo Request Message + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Identifier | Sequence Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Data ... + +-+-+-+-+- + + IPv6 Fields: + + Destination Address + + Any legal IPv6 address. + + ICMPv6 Fields: + + Type 128 + + Code 0 + + Identifier An identifier to aid in matching Echo Replies + to this Echo Request. May be zero. + + Sequence Number + + A sequence number to aid in matching Echo Replies + to this Echo Request. May be zero. + + Data Zero or more octets of arbitrary data. + + Description + + Every node MUST implement an ICMPv6 Echo responder function that + receives Echo Requests and sends corresponding Echo Replies. A node + SHOULD also implement an application-layer interface for sending Echo + Requests and receiving Echo Replies, for diagnostic purposes. + + Upper layer notification + + A node receiving this ICMPv6 message MAY notify the upper-layer + protocol. + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +4.2 Echo Reply Message + + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Identifier | Sequence Number | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Data ... + +-+-+-+-+- + + IPv6 Fields: + + Destination Address + + Copied from the Source Address field of the invoking + Echo Request packet. + + ICMPv6 Fields: + + Type 129 + + Code 0 + + Identifier The identifier from the invoking Echo Request message. + + Sequence The sequence number from the invoking Echo Request + Number message. + + Data The data from the invoking Echo Request message. + + Description + + Every node MUST implement an ICMPv6 Echo responder function that + receives Echo Requests and sends corresponding Echo Replies. A node + SHOULD also implement an application-layer interface for sending Echo + Requests and receiving Echo Replies, for diagnostic purposes. + + The source address of an Echo Reply sent in response to a unicast + Echo Request message MUST be the same as the destination address of + that Echo Request message. + + An Echo Reply SHOULD be sent in response to an Echo Request message + sent to an IPv6 multicast address. The source address of the reply + MUST be a unicast address belonging to the interface on which the + multicast Echo Request message was received. + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + + The data received in the ICMPv6 Echo Request message MUST be returned + entirely and unmodified in the ICMPv6 Echo Reply message, unless the + Echo Reply would exceed the MTU of the path back to the Echo + requester, in which case the data is truncated to fit that path MTU. + + Upper layer notification + + Echo Reply messages MUST be passed to the ICMPv6 user interface, + unless the corresponding Echo Request originated in the IP layer. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +4.3 Group Membership Messages + + The ICMPv6 Group Membership Messages have 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Maximum Response Delay | Unused | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + + + + | Multicast | + + + + | Address | + + + + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + IPv6 Fields: + + Destination Address + + In a Group Membership Query message, the multicast + address of the group being queried, or the Link-Local + All-Nodes multicast address. + + In a Group Membership Report or a Group Membership + Reduction message, the multicast address of the + group being reported or terminated. + + Hop Limit 1 + + ICMPv6 Fields: + + Type 130 - Group Membership Query + 131 - Group Membership Report + 132 - Group Membership Reduction + + Code 0 + + Maximum Response Delay + + In Query messages, the maximum time that responding + Report messages may be delayed, in milliseconds. + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + + In Report and Reduction messages, this field is + is initialized to zero by the sender and ignored by + receivers. + + Unused Initialized to zero by the sender; ignored by receivers. + + Multicast Address + + The address of the multicast group about which the + message is being sent. In Query messages, the Multicast + Address field may be zero, implying a query for all + groups. + + Description + + The ICMPv6 Group Membership messages are used to convey information + about multicast group membership from nodes to their neighboring + routers. The details of their usage is given in [RFC-1112]. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +5. References + + [IPv6] Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version + 6, Specification", RFC 1883, Xerox PARC, Ipsilon + Networks, December 1995. + + [IPv6-ADDR] Hinden, R., and S. Deering, Editors, "IP Version 6 + Addressing Architecture", RFC 1884, Ipsilon Networks, + Xerox PARC, December 1995. + + [IPv6-DISC] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor + Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", Work in Progress. + + [RFC-792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, + RFC 792, USC/Information Sciences Institute, September + 1981. + + [RFC-1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", STD + 5, RFC 1112, Stanford University, August 1989. + + [RFC-1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - + Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, USC/Information + Sciences Institute, October 1989. + + [RFC-1191] Mogul, J., and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC + 1191, DECWRL, Stanford University, November 1990. + + +6. Acknowledgements + + The document is derived from previous ICMP drafts of the SIPP and + IPng working group. + + The IPng working group and particularly Robert Elz, Jim Bound, Bill + Simpson, Thomas Narten, Charlie Lynn, Bill Fink, and Scott Bradner + (in chronological order) provided extensive review information and + feedback. + + +7. Security Considerations + + Security issues are not discussed in this memo. + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 1885 ICMPv6 (ICMP for IPv6) December 1995 + + +Authors' Addresses: + + Alex Conta Stephen Deering + Digital Equipment Corporation Xerox Palo Alto Research Center + 110 Spitbrook Rd 3333 Coyote Hill Road + Nashua, NH 03062 Palo Alto, CA 94304 + + Phone: +1-603-881-0744 Phone: +1-415-812-4839 + EMail: conta@zk3.dec.com EMail: deering@parc.xerox.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Conta & Deering Standards Track [Page 20] + |