path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7851.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           H. Song
Request for Comments: 7851                                      X. Jiang
Category: Standards Track                                        R. Even
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Huawei
                                                                D. Bryan
                                                            ethernot.org
                                                                  Y. Sun
                                                                     ICT
                                                                May 2016


                 Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Overlay Diagnostics

Abstract

   This document describes mechanisms for Peer-to-Peer (P2P) overlay
   diagnostics.  It defines extensions to the REsource LOcation And
   Discovery (RELOAD) base protocol to collect diagnostic information
   and details the protocol specifications for these extensions.  Useful
   diagnostic information for connection and node status monitoring is
   also defined.  The document also describes the usage scenarios and
   provides examples of how these methods are used to perform
   diagnostics.

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 in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7851.














Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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) 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.





































Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Diagnostic Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Data Collection Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Overview of Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  "Ping-like" Behavior: Extending Ping  . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.1.  RELOAD Request Extension: Ping  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  "Traceroute-like" Behavior: The PathTrack Method  . . . .   9
       4.3.1.  New RELOAD Request: PathTrack . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Error Code Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Diagnostic Data Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.1.  DiagnosticsRequest Data Structure . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.2.  DiagnosticsResponse Data Structure  . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.3.  dMFlags and Diagnostic Kind ID Types  . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Message Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.1.  Message Creation and Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.2.  Message Processing: Intermediate Peers  . . . . . . . . .  20
     6.3.  Message Response Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.4.  Interpreting Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   7.  Authorization through Overlay Configuration . . . . . . . . .  23
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     9.1.  Diagnostics Flag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     9.2.  Diagnostic Kind ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     9.3.  Message Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     9.4.  Error Code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     9.5.  Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     9.6.  XML Name Space Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.1.  Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.2.  Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.3.  Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix B.  Problems with Generating Multiple Responses on Path   29
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30











Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


1.  Introduction

   In the last few years, overlay networks have rapidly evolved and
   emerged as a promising platform for deployment of new applications
   and services in the Internet.  One of the reasons overlay networks
   are seen as an excellent platform for large-scale distributed systems
   is their resilience in the presence of failures.  This resilience has
   three aspects: data replication, routing recovery, and static
   resilience.  Routing recovery algorithms are used to repopulate the
   routing table with live nodes when failures are detected.  Static
   resilience measures the extent to which an overlay can route around
   failures even before the recovery algorithm repairs the routing
   table.  Both routing recovery and static resilience rely on accurate
   and timely detection of failures.

   There are a number of situations in which some nodes in a Peer-to-
   Peer (P2P) overlay may malfunction or behave badly.  For example,
   these nodes may be disabled, congested, or may be misrouting
   messages.  The impact of these malfunctions on the overlay network
   may be a degradation of quality of service provided collectively by
   the peers in the overlay network or an interruption of the overlay
   services.  It is desirable to identify malfunctioning or badly
   behaving peers through diagnostic tools and exclude or reject them
   from the P2P system.  Node failures may also be caused by failures of
   underlying layers.  For example, recovery from an incorrect overlay
   topology may be slow when the speed at which IP routing recovers
   after link failures is very slow.  Moreover, if a backbone link fails
   and the failover is slow, the network may be partitioned, leading to
   partitions of overlay topologies and inconsistent routing results
   between different partitioned components.

   Some keep-alive algorithms based on periodic probe and acknowledge
   mechanisms enable accurate and timely detection of failures of one
   node's neighbors [Overlay-Failure-Detection], but these algorithms by
   themselves can only detect the disabled neighbors using the periodic
   method.  This may not be sufficient for the service provider
   operating the overlay network.

   A P2P overlay diagnostic framework supporting periodic and on-demand
   methods for detecting node failures and network failures is
   desirable.  This document describes a general P2P overlay diagnostic
   extension to the base protocol RELOAD [RFC6940] and is intended as a
   complement to keep-alive algorithms in the P2P overlay itself.
   Readers are advised to consult [P2PSIP-CONCEPTS] for further
   background on the problem domain.






Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


2.  Terminology

   This document uses the concepts defined in RELOAD [RFC6940].  In
   addition, the following terms are used in the document:

   overlay hop:
         One overlay hop is one portion of path between the initiator
         node and the destination peer in a RELOAD overlay.  Each time
         packets are passed to the next node in the RELOAD overlay, one
         overlay hop occurs.

   underlay hop:
         An underlay hop is one portion of the path between source and
         destination in the IP layer.  Each time packets are passed to
         the next IP-layer device, an underlay hop occurs.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  Diagnostic Scenarios

   P2P systems are self-organizing, and ideally the setup and
   configuration of individual P2P nodes requires no network management
   in the traditional sense.  However, users of an overlay as well as
   P2P service providers may contemplate usage scenarios where some
   monitoring and diagnostics are required.  We present a simple
   connectivity test and some useful diagnostic information that may be
   used in such diagnostics.

   The common usage scenarios for P2P diagnostics can be broadly
   categorized in three classes:

   a.  Automatic diagnostics built into the P2P overlay routing
       protocol.  Nodes perform periodic checks of known neighbors and
       remove those nodes from the routing tables that fail to respond
       to connectivity checks [Handling_Churn_in_a_DHT].  Unresponsive
       nodes may only be temporarily disabled, for example, due to a
       local cryptographic processing overload, disk processing
       overload, or link overload.  It is therefore useful to repeat the
       connectivity checks to see nodes have recovered and can be again
       placed in the routing tables.  This process is known as 'failed
       node recovery' and can be optimized as described in the paper
       "Handling Churn in a DHT" [Handling_Churn_in_a_DHT].







Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   b.  Diagnostics used by a particular node to follow up on an
       individual user complaint or failure.  For example, a technical
       support staff member may use a desktop sharing application (with
       the permission of the user) to remotely determine the health of,
       and possible problems with, the malfunctioning node.  Part of the
       remote diagnostics may consist of simple connectivity tests with
       other nodes in the P2P overlay and retrieval of statistics from
       nodes in the overlay.  The simple connectivity tests are not
       dependent on the type of P2P overlay.  Note that other tests may
       be required as well, including checking the health and
       performance of the user's computer or mobile device and checking
       the bandwidth of the link connecting the user to the Internet.

   c.  P2P system-wide diagnostics used to check the overall health of
       the P2P overlay network.  These include checking the consumption
       of network bandwidth, checking for the presence of problem links,
       and checking for abusive or malicious nodes.  This is not a
       trivial problem and has been studied in detail for content and
       streaming P2P overlays [Diagnostic_Framework] and has not been
       addressed in earlier documents.  While this is a difficult
       problem, a great deal of information that can help in diagnosing
       these problems can be obtained by obtaining basic diagnostic
       information for peers and the network.  This document provides a
       framework for obtaining this information.

4.  Data Collection Mechanisms

4.1.  Overview of Operations

   The diagnostic mechanisms described in this document are primarily
   intended to detect and locate failures or monitor performance in P2P
   overlay networks.  It provides mechanisms to detect and locate
   malfunctioning or badly behaving nodes including disabled nodes,
   congested nodes, and misrouting peers.  It provides a mechanism to
   detect direct connectivity or connectivity to a specified node, a
   mechanism to detect the availability of specified resource records,
   and a mechanism to discover P2P overlay topology and the underlay
   topology failures.

   The RELOAD diagnostics extensions define two mechanisms to collect
   data.  The first is an extension to the RELOAD Ping mechanism that
   allows diagnostic data to be queried from a node as well as to
   diagnose the path to that node.  The second is a new method,
   PathTrack, for collecting diagnostic information iteratively.
   Payloads for these mechanisms allowing diagnostic data to be
   collected and represented are presented, and additional error codes
   are introduced.  Essentially, this document reuses the RELOAD
   specification [RFC6940] and extends it to introduce the new



Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   diagnostics methods.  The extensions strictly follow how RELOAD
   specifies message routing, transport, NAT traversal, and other RELOAD
   protocol features.

   This document primarily describes how to detect and locate failures
   including disabled nodes, congested nodes, misrouting behaviors, and
   underlying network faults in P2P overlay networks through a simple
   and efficient mechanism.  This mechanism is modeled after the ping/
   traceroute paradigm: ping [RFC792] is used for connectivity checks,
   and traceroute is used for hop-by-hop fault localization as well as
   path tracing.  This document specifies a "ping-like" mode (by
   extending the RELOAD Ping method to gather diagnostics) and a
   "traceroute-like" mode (by defining the new PathTrack method) for
   diagnosing P2P overlay networks.

   One way these tools can be used is to detect the connectivity to the
   specified node or the availability of the specified resource record
   through the extended Ping operation.  Once the overlay network
   receives some alarms about overlay service degradation or
   interruption, a Ping is sent.  If the Ping fails, one can then send a
   PathTrack to determine where the fault lies.

   The diagnostic information can only be provided to authorized nodes.
   Some diagnostic information can be provided to all the participants
   in the P2P overlay, and some other diagnostic information can only be
   provided to the nodes authorized by the local or overlay policy.  The
   authorization depends on the type of the diagnostic information and
   the administrative considerations and is application specific.

   This document considers the general administrative scenario based on
   diagnostic Kind, where a whole overlay can authorize a certain kind
   of diagnostic information to a small list of particular nodes (e.g.,
   administrative nodes).  That means if a node gets the authorization
   to access a diagnostic Kind, it can access that information from all
   nodes in the overlay network.  It leaves the scenario where a
   particular node authorizes its diagnostic information to a particular
   list of nodes out of scope.  This could be achieved by extension of
   this document if there is a requirement in the near future.  The
   default policy or access rule for a type of diagnostic information is
   "deny" unless specified in the diagnostics extension document.  As
   the RELOAD protocol already requires that each message carries the
   message signature of the sender, the receiver of the diagnostics
   requests can use the signature to identify the sender.  It can then
   use the overlay configuration file with this signature to determine
   which types of diagnostic information that node is authorized for.






Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   In the remainder of this section we define mechanisms for collecting
   data, as well as the specific protocol extensions (message
   extensions, new methods, and error codes) required to collect this
   information.  In Section 5 we discuss the format of the data
   collected, and in Section 6 we discuss detailed message processing.

   It is important to note that the mechanisms described in this
   document do not guarantee that the information collected is in fact
   related to the previous failures.  However, using the information
   from previous traversed nodes, the user (or management system) may be
   able to infer the problem.  Symmetric routing can be achieved by
   using the Via List [RFC6940] (or an alternate DHT routing algorithm),
   but the response path is not guaranteed to be the same.

4.2.  "Ping-like" Behavior: Extending Ping

   To provide "ping-like" behavior, the RELOAD Ping method is extended
   to collect diagnostic data along the path.  The request message is
   forwarded by the intermediate peers along the path and then
   terminated by the responsible peer.  After optional local
   diagnostics, the responsible peer returns a response message.  If an
   error is found when routing, an error response is sent to the
   initiator node by the intermediate peer.

   The message flow of a Ping message (with diagnostic extensions) is as
   follows:

    Peer A              Peer B               Peer C             Peer D
      |                    |                    |                    |
      |(1). PingReq        |                    |                    |
      |------------------->|(2). PingReq        |                    |
      |                    |------------------->|(3). PingReq        |
      |                    |                    |------------------->|
      |                    |                    |                    |
      |                    |                    |<-------------------|
      |                    |<-------------------|(4). PingAns        |
      |<-------------------|(5). PingAns        |                    |
      |(6). PingAns        |                    |                    |
      |                    |                    |                    |

                  Figure 1: Ping Diagnostic Message Flow










Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


4.2.1.  RELOAD Request Extension: Ping

   To extend the Ping request for use in diagnostics, a new extension of
   RELOAD is defined.  The structure for a MessageExtension in RELOAD is
   defined as:

            struct {
              MessageExtensionType  type;
              Boolean               critical;
              opaque                extension_contents<0..2^32-1>;
            } MessageExtension;

   For the Ping request extension, we define a new MessageExtensionType,
   extension 0x2 named "Diagnostic_Ping", as specified in Table 4.  The
   extension contents consists of a DiagnosticsRequest structure,
   defined in Section 5.1.  This extension MAY be used for new requests
   of the Ping method and MUST NOT be included in requests using any
   other method.

   This extension is not critical.  If a peer does not support the
   extension, they will simply ignore the diagnostic portion of the
   message and will treat the message as if it were a normal ping.
   Senders MUST accept a response that lacks diagnostic information and
   SHOULD NOT resend the message expecting a reply.  Receivers who
   receive a method other than Ping including this extension MUST ignore
   the extension.

4.3.  "Traceroute-like" Behavior: The PathTrack Method

   We define a simple PathTrack method for retrieving diagnostic
   information iteratively.

   The operation of this request is shown below in Figure 2.  The
   initiator node A asks its neighbor B which is the next hop peer to
   the destination ID, and B returns a message with the next hop peer C
   information, along with optional diagnostic information for B to the
   initiator node.  Then the initiator node A asks the next hop peer C
   (direct response routing [RFC7263] or via symmetric routing) to
   return next hop peer D information and diagnostic information of C.
   Unless a failure prevents the message from being forwarded, this step
   can be repeated until the request reaches responsible peer D for the
   destination ID and retrieves the diagnostic information of peer D.









Song, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 9]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   The message flow of a PathTrack message (with diagnostic extensions)
   is as follows:

   Peer-A              Peer-B               Peer-C             Peer-D
     |                    |                    |                    |
     |(1).PathTrackReq    |                    |                    |
     |------------------->|                    |                    |
     |(2).PathTrackAns    |                    |                    |
     |<-------------------|                    |                    |
     |                    |(3).PathTrackReq    |                    |
     |--------------------|------------------->|                    |
     |                    |(4).PathTrackAns    |                    |
     |<-------------------|--------------------|                    |
     |                    |                    |(5).PathTrackReq    |
     |--------------------|--------------------|------------------->|
     |                    |                    |(6).PathTrackAns    |
     |<-------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
     |                    |                    |                    |

                Figure 2: PathTrack Diagnostic Message Flow

   There have been proposals that RouteQuery and a series of Fetch
   requests can be used to replace the PathTrack mechanism; however, in
   the presence of high rates of churn, such an operation would not,
   strictly speaking, provide identical results, as the path may change
   between RouteQuery and Fetch operations.  While obviously the path
   could change between steps of PathTrack as well, with a single
   message rather than two messages for query and fetch, less
   inconsistency is likely, and thus the use of a single message is
   preferred.

   Given that in a typical diagnostic scenario the peer sending the
   PathTrack request desires to obtain information about the current
   path to the destination, in the event that successive calls to
   PathTrack return different paths, the results should be discarded and
   the request resent, ensuring that the second request traverses the
   appropriate path.

4.3.1.  New RELOAD Request: PathTrack

   This document defines a new RELOAD method, PathTrack, to retrieve the
   diagnostic information from the intermediate peers along the routing
   path.  At each step of the PathTrack request, the responsible peer
   responds to the initiator node with requested status information.
   Status information can include a peer's congestion state, processing
   power, available bandwidth, the number of entries in its neighbor
   table, uptime, identity, network address information, and next hop
   peer information.



Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 10]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   A PathTrack request specifies which diagnostic information is
   requested using a DiagnosticsRequest data structure, which is defined
   and discussed in detail in Section 5.1.  Base information is
   requested by setting the appropriate flags in the data structure in
   the request.  If all flags are clear (no bits are set), then the
   PathTrack request is only used for requesting the next hop
   information.  In this case, the iterative mode of PathTrack is
   degraded to a RouteQuery method that is only used for checking the
   liveness of the peers along the routing path.  The PathTrack request
   can be routed using direct response routing or other routing methods
   chosen by the initiator node.

   A response to a successful PathTrackReq is a PathTrackAns message.
   The PathTrackAns contains general diagnostic information in the
   payload, returned using a DiagnosticResponse data structure.  This
   data structure is defined and discussed in detail in Section 5.2.
   The information returned is determined based on the information
   requested in the flags in the corresponding request.

4.3.1.1.  PathTrack Request

   The structure of the PathTrack request is as follows:

                           struct{
                               Destination destination;
                               DiagnosticsRequest request;
                           }PathTrackReq;

   The fields of the PathTrackReq are as follows:

   destination:  The destination that the initiator node is interested
      in.  This may be any valid destination object, including a NodeID,
      opaque ids, or ResourceID.  One example should be noted that, for
      debugging purposes, the initiator will use the destination ID as
      it was used when failure happened.

   request:  A DiagnosticsRequest, as discussed in Section 5.1.

4.3.1.2.  PathTrack Response

   The structure of the PathTrack response is as follows:

                             struct{
                                  Destination next_hop;
                                  DiagnosticsResponse response;
                              }PathTrackAns;





Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 11]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   The fields of the PathTrackAns are as follows:

   next_hop:  The information of the next hop node from the responding
      intermediate peer to the destination.  If the responding peer is
      the responsible peer for the destination ID, then the next_hop
      node ID equals the responding node ID, and after receiving a
      PathTrackAns where the next_hop node ID equals the responding node
      ID, the initiator MUST stop the iterative process.

   response:  A DiagnosticsResponse, as discussed in Section 5.2.

4.4.  Error Code Extensions

   This document extends the error response method defined in the RELOAD
   specification to support error cases resulting from diagnostic
   queries.  When an error is encountered in RELOAD, the Message Code
   0xffff is returned.  The ErrorResponse structure includes an error
   code.  We define new error codes to report possible error conditions
   detected while performing diagnostics:

      Code Value     Error Code Name
         0x15        Error_Underlay_Destination_Unreachable
         0x16        Error_Underlay_Time_Exceeded
         0x17        Error_Message_Expired
         0x18        Error_Upstream_Misrouting
         0x19        Error_Loop_Detected
         0x1a        Error_TTL_Hops_Exceeded

   The error code is returned by the upstream node before the failure
   node.  The upstream node uses the normal ping to detect the failure
   type and return it to the initiator node, which will help the user
   (initiator node) to understand where the failure happened and what
   kind of error happened, as the failure may happen at the same
   location and for the same reason when sending the normal message and
   the diagnostics message.

   As defined in RELOAD, additional information may be stored (in an
   implementation-specific way) in the optional error_info byte string.
   While the specifics are obviously left to the implementation, as an
   example, in the case of 0x15, the error_field could be used to
   provide additional information as to why the underlay destination is
   unreachable (net unreachable, host unreachable, fragmentation needed,
   etc.).








Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 12]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


5.  Diagnostic Data Structures

   Both the extended Ping method and PathTrack method use the following
   common diagnostics data structures to collect data.  Two common
   structures are defined: DiagnosticsRequest for requesting data and
   DiagnosticsResponse for returning the information.

5.1.  DiagnosticsRequest Data Structure

   The DiagnosticsRequest data structure is used to request diagnostic
   information and has the following form:

          enum{ (2^16-1) } DiagnosticKindId;

          struct{
              DiagnosticKindId kind;
              opaque  diagnostic_extension_contents<0..2^32-1>;
          }DiagnosticExtension;

          struct{
              uint64 expiration;
              uint64 timestamp_initiated;
              uint64 dMFlags;
              uint32 ext_length;
              DiagnosticExtension diagnostic_extensions_list<0..2^32-1>;
           }DiagnosticsRequest;

   The fields in the DiagnosticsRequest are as follows:

   expiration:  The time when the request will expire represented as the
      number of milliseconds elapsed since midnight Jan 1, 1970 UTC (not
      counting leap seconds).  This will have the same values for
      seconds as standard UNIX time or POSIX time.  More information can
      be found at "Unix time" in Wikipedia [UnixTime].  This value MUST
      have a value between 1 and 600 seconds in the future.  This value
      is used to prevent replay attacks.

   timestamp_initiated:  The time when the diagnostics request was
      initiated, represented as the number of milliseconds elapsed since
      midnight Jan 1, 1970 UTC (not counting leap seconds).  This will
      have the same values for seconds as standard UNIX time or POSIX
      time.









Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 13]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   dMFlags:  A mandatory field that is an unsigned 64-bit integer
      indicating which base diagnostic information the request initiator
      node is interested in.  The initiator sets different bits to
      retrieve different kinds of diagnostic information.  If dMFlags is
      set to zero, then no base diagnostic information is conveyed in
      the PathTrack response.  If dMFlags is set to all "1"s, then all
      base diagnostic information values are requested.  A request may
      set any number of the flags to request the corresponding
      diagnostic information.

      Note this memo specifies the initial set of flags; the flags can
      be extended.  The dMflags indicate general diagnostic information.
      The mapping between the bits in the dMFlags and the diagnostic
      Kind ID presented is as described in Section 9.1.

   ext_length:  The length of the extended diagnostic request
      information in bytes.  If the value is greater than or equal to 1,
      then some extended diagnostic information is being requested on
      the assumption this information will be included in the response
      if the recipient understands the extended request and is willing
      to provide it.  The specific diagnostic information requested is
      defined in the diagnostic_extensions_list below.  A value of zero
      indicates no extended diagnostic information is being requested.
      The value of ext_length MUST NOT be negative.  Note that it is not
      the length of the entire DiagnosticsRequest data structure, but of
      the data making up the diagnostic_extensions_list.

   diagnostic_extensions_list:  Consists of one or more
      DiagnosticExtension structures (see below) documenting additional
      diagnostic information being requested.  Each DiagnosticExtension
      consists of the following fields:

      kind:  A numerical code indicating the type of extension
         diagnostic information (see Section 9.2).  Note that kinds
         0xf000 - 0xfffe are reserved for overlay specific diagnostics
         and may be used without IANA registration for local diagnostic
         information.  Kinds from 0x0000 to 0x003f MUST NOT be indicated
         in the diagnostic_extensions_list in the message request, as
         they may be represented using the dMFlags in a much simpler
         (and more space efficient) way.

      diagnostic_extension_contents:  The opaque data containing the
         request for this particular extension.  This data is extension
         dependent.







Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 14]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


5.2.  DiagnosticsResponse Data Structure

   The DiagnosticsResponse data structure is used to return the
   diagnostic information and has the following form:

               enum { (2^16-1) } DiagnosticKindId;
               struct{
                   DiagnosticKindId kind;
                   opaque diagnostic_info_contents<0..2^16-1>;
               }DiagnosticInfo;

               struct{
                   uint64 expiration;
                   uint64 timestamp_initiated;
                   uint64 timestamp_received;
                   uint8 hop_counter;
                   uint32 ext_length;
                   DiagnosticInfo diagnostic_info_list<0..2^32-1>;
               }DiagnosticsResponse;

   The fields in the DiagnosticsResponse are as follows:

   expiration:  The time when the response will expire represented as
      the number of milliseconds elapsed since midnight Jan 1, 1970 UTC
      (not counting leap seconds).  This will have the same values for
      seconds as standard UNIX time or POSIX time.  This value MUST have
      a value between 1 and 600 seconds in the future.

   timestamp_initiated:  This value is copied from the diagnostics
      request message.  The benefit of containing such a value in the
      response message is that the initiator node does not have to
      maintain the state.

   timestamp_received:  The time when the diagnostic request was
      received represented as the number of milliseconds elapsed since
      midnight Jan 1, 1970 UTC (not counting leap seconds).  This will
      have the same values for seconds as standard UNIX time or POSIX
      time.

   hop_counter:  This field only appears in diagnostic responses.  It
      MUST be exactly copied from the TTL field of the forwarding header
      in the received request.  This information is sent back to the
      request initiator, allowing it to compute the number of hops that
      the message traversed in the overlay.







Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 15]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   ext_length:  The length of the returned DiagnosticInfo information in
      bytes.  If the value is greater than or equal to 1, then some
      extended diagnostic information (as specified in the
      DiagnosticsRequest) was available and is being returned.  In that
      case, this value indicates the length of the returned information.
      A value of zero indicates no extended diagnostic information is
      included either because none was requested or the request could
      not be accommodated.  The value of ext_length MUST NOT be
      negative.  Note that it is not the length of the entire
      DiagnosticsRequest data structure but of the data making up the
      diagnostic_info_list.

   diagnostic_info_list:  consists of one or more DiagnosticInfo
      structures containing the requested diagnostic_info_contents.  The
      fields in the DiagnosticInfo structure are as follows:

      kind:  A numeric code indicating the type of information being
         returned.  For base data requested using the dMFlags, this code
         corresponds to the dMFlag set and is described in Section 5.1.
         For diagnostic extensions, this code will be identical to the
         value of the DiagnosticKindId set in the "kind" field of the
         DiagnosticExtension of the request.  See Section 9.2.

      diagnostic_info_contents:  Data containing the value for the
         diagnostic information being reported.  Various kinds of
         diagnostic information can be retrieved.  Please refer to
         Section 5.3 for details of the diagnostic Kind ID for the base
         diagnostic information that may be reported.

5.3.  dMFlags and Diagnostic Kind ID Types

   The dMFlags field described above is a 64-bit field that allows
   initiator nodes to identify up to 62 items of base information to
   request in a request message (the first and last flags being
   reserved).  The dMFlags also reserves all "0"s, which means nothing
   is requested, and all "1"s, which means everything is requested.  But
   at the same time, the first and last bits cannot be used for other
   purposes, and they MUST be set to 0 when other particular diagnostic
   Kind IDs are requested.  When the requested base information is
   returned in the response, the value of the diagnostic Kind ID will
   correspond to the numeric field marked in the dMFlags in the request.
   The values for the dMFlags are defined in Section 9.1 and the
   diagnostic Kind IDs are defined in Section 9.2.  The information
   contained for each value is described in this section.  Access to
   each kind of diagnostic information MUST NOT be allowed unless
   compliant to the rules defined in Section 7.





Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 16]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   STATUS_INFO (8 bits):  A single-value element containing an unsigned
      byte representing whether or not the node is in congestion status.
      An example usage of STATUS_INFO is for congestion-aware routing.
      In this scenario, each peer has to update its congestion status
      periodically.  An intermediate peer in the Distributed Hash
      Table (DHT) network will choose its next hop according to both the
      DHT routing algorithm and the status information.  This is done to
      avoid increasing load on congested peers.  The rightmost 4 bits
      are used and other bits MUST be cleared to "0"s for future use.

      There are 16 levels of congestion status, with 0x00 representing
      zero load and 0x0f representing congestion.  This document does
      not provide a specific method for congestion and leaves this
      decision to each overlay implementation.  One possible option for
      an overlay implementation would be to take node's CPU/memory/
      bandwidth usage percentage in the past 600 seconds and normalize
      the highest value to the range from 0x00 to 0x0f.  An overlay
      implementation can also decide to not use all the 16 values from
      0x00 to 0x0f.  A future document may define an objective measure
      or specific algorithm for this.

   ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE (32 bits):  A single-value element containing an
      unsigned 32-bit integer representing the number of peers in the
      peer's routing table.  The administrator of the overlay may be
      interested in statistics of this value for reasons such as routing
      efficiency.

   PROCESS_POWER (64 bits):  A single-value element containing an
      unsigned 64-bit integer specifying the processing power of the
      node with MIPS as the unit.  Fractional values are rounded up.

   UPSTREAM_BANDWIDTH (64 bits):  A single-value element containing an
      unsigned 64-bit integer specifying the upstream network bandwidth
      (provisioned or maximum, not available) of the node with units of
      kbit/s.  Fractional values are rounded up.  For multihomed hosts,
      this should be the link used to send the response.

   DOWNSTREAM_BANDWIDTH (64 bits):  A single-value element containing an
      unsigned 64-bit integer specifying the downstream network
      bandwidth (provisioned or maximum, not available) of the node with
      kbit/s as the unit.  Fractional values are rounded up.  For
      multihomed hosts, this should be the link the request was received
      from.








Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 17]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   SOFTWARE_VERSION:  A single-value element containing a US-ASCII
      string that identifies the manufacture, model, operating system
      information, and the version of the software.  Given that there
      are a very large number of peers in some networks, and no peer is
      likely to know all other peer's software, this information may be
      very useful to help determine if the cause of certain groups of
      misbehaving peers is related to specific software versions.  While
      the format is peer defined, a suggested format is as follows:
      "ApplicationProductToken (Platform; OS-or-CPU) VendorProductToken
      (VendorComment)", for example, "MyReloadApp/1.0 (Unix; Linux
      x86_64) libreload-java/0.7.0 (Stonyfish Inc.)".  The string is a
      C-style string and MUST be terminated by "\0"."\0" MUST NOT be
      included in the string itself to prevent confusion with the
      delimiter.

   MACHINE_UPTIME (64 bits):  A single-value element containing an
      unsigned 64-bit integer specifying the time the node's underlying
      system has been up (in seconds).

   APP_UPTIME (64 bits):  A single-value element containing an unsigned
      64-bit integer specifying the time the P2P application has been up
      (in seconds).

   MEMORY_FOOTPRINT (64 bits):  A single-value element containing an
      unsigned 64-bit integer representing the memory footprint of the
      peer program in kilobytes (1024 bytes).  Fractional values are
      rounded up.

   DATASIZE_STORED (64 bits):  An unsigned 64-bit integer representing
      the number of bytes of data being stored by this node.

   INSTANCES_STORED:  An array element containing the number of
      instances of each kind stored.  The array is indexed by Kind-ID.
      Each entry is an unsigned 64-bit integer.

   MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD:  An array element containing the number of
      messages sent and received.  The array is indexed by method code.
      Each entry in the array is a pair of unsigned 64-bit integers
      (packed end to end) representing sent and received.

   EWMA_BYTES_SENT (32 bits):  A single-value element containing an
      unsigned 32-bit integer representing an exponential weighted
      average of bytes sent per second by this peer:

      sent = alpha x sent_present + (1 - alpha) x sent_last

      where sent_present represents the bytes sent per second since the
      last calculation and sent_last represents the last calculation of



Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 18]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


      bytes sent per second.  A suitable value for alpha is 0.8 (or
      another value as determined by the implementation).  This value is
      calculated every five seconds (or another time period as
      determined by the implementation).  The value for the very first
      time period should simply be the average of bytes sent in that
      time period.

   EWMA_BYTES_RCVD (32 bits):  A single-value element containing an
      unsigned 32-bit integer representing an exponential weighted
      average of bytes received per second by this peer:

      rcvd = alpha x rcvd_present + (1 - alpha) x rcvd_last

      where rcvd_present represents the bytes received per second since
      the last calculation and rcvd_last represents the last calculation
      of bytes received per second.  A suitable value for alpha is 0.8
      (or another value as determined by the implementation).  This
      value is calculated every five seconds (or another time period as
      determined by the implementation).  The value for the very first
      time period should simply be the average of bytes received in that
      time period.

   UNDERLAY_HOP (8 bits):  Indicates the IP-layer hops from the
      intermediate peer, which receives the diagnostics message to the
      next-hop peer for this message.  (Note: RELOAD does not require
      the intermediate peers to look into the message body.  So, here we
      use PathTrack to gather underlay hops for diagnostics purpose).

   BATTERY_STATUS (8 bits):  The leftmost bit is used to indicate
      whether this peer is using a battery or not.  If this bit is clear
      (set to "0"), then the peer is using a battery for power.  The
      other 7 bits are to be determined by specific applications.

6.  Message Processing

6.1.  Message Creation and Transmission

   When constructing either a Ping message with diagnostic extensions or
   a PathTrack message, the sender first creates and populates a
   DiagnosticsRequest data structure.  The timestamp_initiated field is
   set to the current time, and the expiration field is constructed
   based on this time.  The sender includes the dMFlags field in the
   structure, setting any number (including all) of the flags to request
   particular diagnostic information.  The sender MAY leave all the bits
   unset, thereby requesting no particular diagnostic information.

   The sender MAY also include diagnostic extensions in the
   DiagnosticsRequest data structure to request additional information.



Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 19]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   If the sender includes any extensions, it MUST calculate the length
   of these extensions and set the ext_length field to this value.  If
   no extensions are included, the sender MUST set ext_length to zero.

   The format of the DiagnosticRequest data structure and its fields
   MUST follow the restrictions defined in Section 5.1.

   When constructing a Ping message with diagnostic extensions, the
   sender MUST create a MessageExtension structure as defined in RELOAD
   [RFC6940], setting the value of type to 0x2 and the value of critical
   to FALSE.  The value of extension_contents MUST be a
   DiagnosticsRequest structure as defined above.  The message MAY be
   directed to a particular NodeID or ResourceID but MUST NOT be sent to
   the broadcast NodeID.

   When constructing a PathTrack message, the sender MUST set the
   message_code for the RELOAD MessageContents structure to
   path_track_req 0x27.  The request field of the PathTrackReq MUST be
   set to the DiagnosticsRequest data structure defined above.  The
   destination field MUST be set to the desired destination, which MAY
   be either a NodeID or ResourceID but SHOULD NOT be the broadcast
   NodeID.

6.2.  Message Processing: Intermediate Peers

   When a request arrives at a peer, if the peer's responsible ID space
   does not cover the destination ID of the request, then the peer MUST
   continue processing this request according to the overlay specified
   routing mode from RELOAD protocol.

   In P2P overlay, error responses to a message can be generated by
   either an intermediate peer or the responsible peer.  When a request
   is received at a peer, the peer may find connectivity failures or
   malfunctioning peers through the predefined rules of the overlay
   network, e.g., by analyzing the Via List or underlay error messages.
   In this case, the intermediate peer returns an error response to the
   initiator node, reporting any malfunction node information available
   in the error message payload.  All error responses generated MUST
   contain the appropriate error code.

   Each intermediate peer receiving a Ping message with extensions (and
   that understands the extension) or receiving a PathTrack request /
   response MUST check the expiration value (Unix time format) to
   determine if the message is expired.  If the message expired, the
   intermediate peer MUST generate a response with error code 0x17
   "Error_Message_Expired", return the response to the initiator node,
   and discard the message.




Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 20]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   The intermediate peer MUST return an error response with the error
   code 0x15 "Error_Underlay_Destination_Unreachable" when it receives
   an ICMP message with "Destination Unreachable" information after
   forwarding the received request to the destination peer.

   The intermediate peer MUST return an error response with the error
   code 0x16 "Error_Underlay_Time_Exceeded" when it receives an ICMP
   message with "Time Exceeded" information after forwarding the
   received request.

   The peer MUST return an error response with error code 0x18
   "Error_Upstream_Misrouting" when it finds its upstream peer disobeys
   the routing rules defined in the overlay.  The immediate upstream
   peer information MUST also be conveyed to the initiator node.

   The peer MUST return an error response with error code 0x19
   "Error_Loop_Detected" when it finds a loop through the analysis of
   the Via List.

   The peer MUST return an error response with error code 0x1a
   "Error_TTL_Hops_Exceeded" when it finds that the TTL field value is
   no more than 0 when forwarding.

6.3.  Message Response Creation

   When a diagnostic request message arrives at a peer, it is
   responsible for the destination ID specified in the forwarding
   header, and assuming it understands the extension (in the case of
   Ping) or the new request type PathTrack, it MUST follow the
   specifications defined in RELOAD to form the response header, and
   perform the following operations:

   o  When constructing a PathTrack response, the sender MUST set the
      message_code for the RELOAD MessageContents structure to
      path_track_ans 0x28.

   o  The receiver MUST check the expiration value (Unix time format) in
      the DiagnosticsRequest to determine if the message is expired.  If
      the message is expired, the peer MUST generate a response with the
      error code 0x17 "Error_Message_Expired", return the response to
      the initiator node, and discard the message.

   o  If the message is not expired, the receiver MUST construct a
      DiagnosticsResponse structure as follows: 1) the TTL value from
      the forwarding header is copied to the hop_counter field of the
      DiagnosticsResponse structure (note that the default value for TTL
      at the beginning represents 100 hops unless the overlay
      configuration has overridden the value), and 2) the receiver



Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 21]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


      generates a Unix time format timestamp for the current time of day
      and places it in the timestamp_received field and constructs a new
      expiration time and places it in the expiration field of the
      DiagnosticsResponse.

   o  The destination peer MUST check if the initiator node has the
      authority to request specific types of diagnostic information, and
      if appropriate, append the diagnostic information requested in the
      dMFlags and diagnostic_extensions (if any) using the
      diagnostic_info_list field to the DiagnosticsResponse structure.
      If any information is returned, the receiver MUST calculate the
      length of the response and set ext_length appropriately.  If no
      diagnostic information is returned, ext_length MUST be set to
      zero.

   o  The format of the DiagnosticResponse data structure and its fields
      MUST follow the restrictions defined in Section 5.2.

   o  In the event of an error, an error response containing the error
      code followed by the description (if they exist) MUST be created
      and sent to the sender.  If the initiator node asks for diagnostic
      information that they are not authorized to query, the receiving
      peer MUST return an error response with the error code 2
      "Error_Forbidden".

6.4.  Interpreting Results

   The initiator node, as well as the responding peer, may compute the
   overlay One-Way-Delay time through the value in timestamp_received
   and the timestamp_initiated field.  However, for a single hop
   measurement, the traditional measurement methods (IP-layer ping) MUST
   be used instead of the overlay layer diagnostics methods.

   The P2P overlay network using the diagnostics methods specified in
   this document MUST enforce time synchronization with a central time
   server.  The Network Time Protocol [RFC5905] can usually maintain
   time to within tens of milliseconds over the public Internet and can
   achieve better than one millisecond accuracy in local area networks
   under ideal conditions.  However, this document does not specify the
   choice for time resolution and synchronization, leaving it to the
   implementation.

   The initiator node receiving the Ping response may check the
   hop_counter field and compute the overlay hops to the destination
   peer for the statistics of connectivity quality from the perspective
   of overlay hops.





Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 22]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


7.  Authorization through Overlay Configuration

   Different level of access control can be made for different users/
   nodes.  For example, diagnostic information A can be accessed by
   nodes 1 and 2, but diagnostic information B can only be accessed by
   node 2.

   The overlay configuration file MUST contain the following XML
   elements for authorizing a node to access the relative diagnostic
   Kinds.

   diagnostic-kind:  This has the attribute "kind" with the hexadecimal
      number indicating the diagnostic Kind ID.  This attribute has the
      same value with Section 9.2 and at least one subelement "access-
      node".

   access-node:  This element contains one hexadecimal number indicating
      a NodeID, and the node with this NodeID is allowed to access the
      diagnostic "kind" under the same diagnostic-kind element.

8.  Security Considerations

   The authorization for diagnostic information must be designed with
   care to prevent it becoming a method to retrieve information for both
   attacks.  It should also be noted that attackers can use diagnostics
   to analyze overlay information to attack certain key peers.  For
   example, diagnostic information might be used to fingerprint a peer
   where the peer will lose its anonymity characteristics, but anonymity
   might be very important for some P2P overlay networks, and defenses
   against such fingerprinting are probably very hard.  As such,
   networks where anonymity is of very high importance may find
   implementation of diagnostics problematic or even undesirable,
   despite the many advantages it offers.  As this document is a RELOAD
   extension, it follows RELOAD message header and routing
   specifications.  The common security considerations described in the
   base document [RFC6940] are also applicable to this document.
   Overlays may define their own requirements on who can collect/share
   diagnostic information.













Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 23]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  Diagnostics Flag

   IANA has created a "RELOAD Diagnostics Flag" registry under protocol
   RELOAD.  Entries in this registry are 1-bit flags contained in a
   64-bit integer dMFlags denoting diagnostic information to be
   retrieved as described in Section 4.3.1.  New entries SHALL be
   defined via Standards Action as per [RFC5226].  The initial contents
   of this registry are:

     +-------------------------+----------------------------+----------+
     |  Diagnostic Information |Diagnostic Flag in dMFlags  | Reference|
     |-------------------------+----------------------------+----------|
     |Reserved All 0s value    | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0000     | RFC 7851 |
     |Reserved First Bit       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0001     | RFC 7851 |
     |STATUS_INFO              | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0002     | RFC 7851 |
     |ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0004     | RFC 7851 |
     |PROCESS_POWER            | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0008     | RFC 7851 |
     |UPSTREAM_BANDWIDTH       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0010     | RFC 7851 |
     |DOWNSTREAM_ BANDWIDTH    | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0020     | RFC 7851 |
     |SOFTWARE_VERSION         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0040     | RFC 7851 |
     |MACHINE_UPTIME           | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0080     | RFC 7851 |
     |APP_UPTIME               | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0100     | RFC 7851 |
     |MEMORY_FOOTPRINT         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0200     | RFC 7851 |
     |DATASIZE_STORED          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0400     | RFC 7851 |
     |INSTANCES_STORED         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0800     | RFC 7851 |
     |MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 1000     | RFC 7851 |
     |EWMA_BYTES_SENT          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 2000     | RFC 7851 |
     |EWMA_BYTES_RCVD          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 4000     | RFC 7851 |
     |UNDERLAY_HOP             | 0x 0000 0000 0000 8000     | RFC 7851 |
     |BATTERY_STATUS           | 0x 0000 0000 0001 0000     | RFC 7851 |
     |Reserved Last Bit        | 0x 8000 0000 0000 0000     | RFC 7851 |
     |Reserved All 1s value    | 0x ffff ffff ffff ffff     | RFC 7851 |
     +-------------------------+----------------------------+----------+
















Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 24]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


9.2.  Diagnostic Kind ID

   IANA has created a "RELOAD Diagnostic Kind ID" registry under
   protocol RELOAD.  Entries in this registry are 16-bit integers
   denoting diagnostics extension data kinds carried in the diagnostic
   request and response messages, as described in Sections and 5.1 and
   5.2.  Code points from 0x0001 to 0x003e are asked to be assigned
   together with flags within the "RELOAD Diagnostics Flag" registry.
   The registration procedure for the "RELOAD Diagnostic Kind ID"
   registry is Standards Action as defined in RFC 5226.

         +----------------------+---------------+---------------+
         | Diagnostic Kind      |      Code     | Specification |
         +----------------------+---------------+---------------+
         | Reserved             |     0x0000    |    RFC 7851   |
         | STATUS_INFO          |     0x0001    |    RFC 7851   |
         | ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE   |     0x0002    |    RFC 7851   |
         | PROCESS_POWER        |     0x0003    |    RFC 7851   |
         | UPSTREAM_BANDWIDTH   |     0x0004    |    RFC 7851   |
         | DOWNSTREAM_BANDWIDTH |     0x0005    |    RFC 7851   |
         | SOFTWARE_VERSION     |     0x0006    |    RFC 7851   |
         | MACHINE_UPTIME       |     0x0007    |    RFC 7851   |
         | APP_UPTIME           |     0x0008    |    RFC 7851   |
         | MEMORY_FOOTPRINT     |     0x0009    |    RFC 7851   |
         | DATASIZE_STORED      |     0x000a    |    RFC 7851   |
         | INSTANCES_STORED     |     0x000b    |    RFC 7851   |
         | MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD   |     0x000c    |    RFC 7851   |
         | EWMA_BYTES_SENT      |     0x000d    |    RFC 7851   |
         | EWMA_BYTES_RCVD      |     0x000e    |    RFC 7851   |
         | UNDERLAY_HOP         |     0x000f    |    RFC 7851   |
         | BATTERY_STATUS       |     0x0010    |    RFC 7851   |
         | Unassigned           | 0x0011-0x003e |    RFC 7851   |
         | local use (Reserved) | 0xf000-0xfffe |    RFC 7851   |
         | Reserved             |     0xffff    |    RFC 7851   |
         +----------------------+---------------+---------------+

                         Table 1: Diagnostic Kind














Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 25]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


9.3.  Message Codes

   This document introduces two new types of messages and their
   responses, so the following additions have been made to the "RELOAD
   Message Codes" registry defined in RELOAD [RFC6940].

               +-------------------+------------+----------+
               | Message Code Name | Code Value |   RFC    |
               +-------------------+------------+----------+
               |   path_track_req  |    0x27    | RFC 7851 |
               |   path_track_ans  |    0x28    | RFC 7851 |
               +-------------------+------------+----------+

                Table 2: Extensions to RELOAD Message Codes

9.4.  Error Code

   This document introduces the following new error codes, which have
   been added to the "RELOAD Error Codes" registry.

    +----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
    | Error Code Name                        | Code Value | Reference |
    +----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
    | Error_Underlay_Destination_Unreachable |    0x15    |  RFC 7851 |
    | Error_Underlay_Time_Exceeded           |    0x16    |  RFC 7851 |
    | Error_Message_Expired                  |    0x17    |  RFC 7851 |
    | Error_Upstream_Misrouting              |    0x18    |  RFC 7851 |
    | Error_Loop_Detected                    |    0x19    |  RFC 7851 |
    | Error_TTL_Hops_Exceeded                |    0x1A    |  RFC 7851 |
    +----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+

                        Table 3: RELOAD Error Codes

9.5.  Message Extension

   This document introduces the following new RELOAD extension code:

                  +-----------------+------+-----------+
                  |  Extension Name | Code | Reference |
                  +-----------------+------+-----------+
                  | Diagnostic_Ping | 0x2  |  RFC 7851 |
                  +-----------------+------+-----------+

                    Table 4: New RELOAD Extension Code







Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 26]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


9.6.  XML Name Space Registration

   This document registers a URI for the config-diagnostics XML
   namespace in the IETF XML registry defined in [RFC3688].  All the
   elements defined in this document belong to this namespace.

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:p2p:config-diagnostics
   Registrant Contact: The IESG.
   XML: N/A; the requested URIs are XML namespaces

   The overlay configuration file MUST contain the following XML
   language declaring P2P diagnostics as a mandatory extension to
   RELOAD.

   <mandatory-extension>
                 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:p2p:config-diagnostics
   </mandatory-extension>

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC792]   Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.

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

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.







Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 27]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


   [RFC6940]  Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Ed., Rescorla, E., Baset, S.,
              and H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery
              (RELOAD) Base Protocol", RFC 6940, DOI 10.17487/RFC6940,
              January 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6940>.

   [RFC7263]  Zong, N., Jiang, X., Even, R., and Y. Zhang, "An Extension
              to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol
              to Support Direct Response Routing", RFC 7263,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7263, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7263>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [UnixTime] Wikipedia, "Unix time", April 2016,
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/
              index.php?title=Unix_time&oldid=715503178>.

   [P2PSIP-CONCEPTS]
              Bryan, D., Matthews, P., Shim, E., Willis, D., and S.
              Dawkins, "Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP",
              Work in Progress, draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-09, April
              2016.

   [Overlay-Failure-Detection]
              Zhuang, S., Geels, D., Stoica, I., and R. Katz, "On
              failure detection algorithms in overlay networks", In
              Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2005, pp. 2112-2123,
              DOI 10.1109/INFCOM.2005.1498487, March 2005.

   [Handling_Churn_in_a_DHT]
              Rhea, S., Geels, D., Roscoe, T., and J. Kubiatowicz,
              "Handling Churn in a DHT", In Proceedings of the
              USENIX Annual Technical Conference, June 2004.

   [Diagnostic_Framework]
              Jin, X., Xiong, Y., Zhang, Q., and S. Chan, "A Diagnostic
              Framework for Peer-to-peer Streaming", IEEE ICME 2006,
              July 2006.













Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 28]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


Appendix A.  Examples

   Below, we sketch how these metrics can be used.

A.1.  Example 1

   A peer may set EWMA_BYTES_SENT and EWMA_BYTES_RCVD flags in the
   PathTrackReq to its direct neighbors.  A peer can use EWMA_BYTES_SENT
   and EWMA_BYTES_RCVD of another peer to infer whether it is acting as
   a media relay.  It may then choose not to forward any requests for
   media relay to this peer.  Similarly, among the various candidates
   for filling up a routing table, a peer may prefer a peer with a large
   UPTIME value, small RTT, and small LAST_CONTACT value.

A.2.  Example 2

   A peer may set the STATUS_INFO Flag in the PathTrackReq to a remote
   destination peer.  The overlay has its own threshold definition for
   congestion.  The peer can obtain knowledge of all the status
   information of the intermediate peers along the path, then it can
   choose other paths to that node for the subsequent requests.

A.3.  Example 3

   A peer may use Ping to evaluate the average overlay hops to other
   peers by sending PingReq to a set of random resource or node IDs in
   the overlay.  A peer may adjust its timeout value according to the
   change of average overlay hops.

Appendix B.  Problems with Generating Multiple Responses on Path

   An earlier draft version of this document considered an approach
   where a response was generated by each intermediate peer as the
   message traversed the overlay.  This approach was discarded.  One
   reason this approach was discarded was that it could provide a DoS
   mechanism, whereby an attacker could send an arbitrary message
   claiming to be from a spoofed "sender" the real sender wished to
   attack.  As a result of sending this one message, many messages would
   be generated and sent back to the spoofed "sender" -- one from each
   intermediate peer on the message path.  While authentication
   mechanisms could reduce some risk of this attack, it still resulted
   in a fundamental break from the request-response nature of the RELOAD
   protocol, as multiple responses are generated to a single request.
   Although one request with responses from all the peers in the route
   will be more efficient, it was determined to be too great a security
   risk and a deviation from the RELOAD architecture.





Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 29]
^L
RFC 7851                 P2P Overlay Diagnostics                May 2016


Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Zheng Hewen for the contribution of the
   initial draft version of this document.  We would also like to thank
   Bruce Lowekamp, Salman Baset, Henning Schulzrinne, Jiang Haifeng, and
   Marc Petit-Huguenin for the email discussion and their valued
   comments, and special thanks to Henry Sinnreich for contributing to
   the usage scenarios text.  We would like to thank the authors of the
   RELOAD protocol for transferring text about diagnostics to this
   document.

Authors' Addresses

   Haibin Song
   Huawei

   Email: haibin.song@huawei.com


   Jiang Xingfeng
   Huawei

   Email: jiangxingfeng@huawei.com


   Roni Even
   Huawei
   14 David Hamelech
   Tel Aviv 64953
   Israel

   Email: ron.even.tlv@gmail.com


   David A. Bryan
   ethernot.org
   Cedar Park, Texas
   United States

   Email: dbryan@ethernot.org


   Yi Sun
   ICT

   Email: sunyi@ict.ac.cn





Song, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 30]
^L