Query

Graph Databases Ascend to the Cloud

By George Leopold

Bucking the trend toward open source databases, cloud vendors continue to promote proprietary graph databases that combine the ability to handle multiple data models with the distribution of data across different cloud regions.

While Amazon Web Services (NASDAQ: AMZN) has embraced an open-source approach with its new Neptune graph database, cloud database competitors Microsoft and Oracle (NYSE: ORCL) are betting there is plenty of life—and revenues—in cloud-based proprietary approaches. Oracle is promoting its upcoming “self-driving database” that leverages AI features to automate administrative tasks. Automation makes the database cheaper to run in the Oracle cloud, Oracle CTO Larry Ellison claimed last month.

Microsoft is meanwhile zeroing in on the vibrant graph market with a multi-modal graph database called Azure Cosmos DB.

Multi-modal graph databases are designed to support different model types such as a combination of document and key-value store along with a graph capability. Observers note that among the advantages of the approach are that graph and key value queries can be run against the same data. The downside is that performance cannot match a dedicated database management system, they add.

Along with Azure Cosmos DB, other multi-modal graph databases include ArangoDB and Sqrrl.

Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) released Azure Cosmos DB details in December, including specs on APIs used to access and query data. Emphasizing the ability to distribute data across different Azure cloud regions, the company released a “multi-homing API” designed to reduce latency by identifying customers’ nearest cloud region, then sending data queries to the closest datacenter.

In support of its multi-model approach, Microsoft also released a batch of APIs that support SQL, MongoDB, Cassandra, Graph (Apache Gremlin) and a key-value database service called Table API. The company said in December that it plans to add support for other data models.

Microsoft is aiming Azure Cosmos DB at the emerging Internet of Things market along with web and mobile applications requiring “massive amounts of data, reads and writes at a global scale with near-real response times for a variety of data,” the company said.

The introduction Azure Cosmos drew mixed reviews in a lively, detailed discussion on the Azure Cosmos DB web site. After identifying several shortcomings, one long-time Azure storage table user concluded that the new database “is not production ready.”

Another user raised an issue that cloud vendors are likely to hear frequently in coming months: A globally distributed database may reduce latency, “but we need to give our users the choice of where their data is stored—particularly in regards to the [General Data Protection Regulation] that goes live in May 2018″ within the European Union.

Recent items:

A Look at the Graph Database Landscape

AWS, Others Seen Moving Oracle Databases

The post Graph Databases Ascend to the Cloud appeared first on Datanami.

Read more here:: www.datanami.com/feed/

Cloudera announces the upcoming beta release of Cloudera Altus Analytic DB

By Zenobia Hegde

Cloudera, Inc., the modern platform for machine learning and analytics, optimised for the cloud, announced the upcoming beta release of Cloudera Altus Analytic DB. Cloudera Altus Analytic DB is the first data warehouse cloud service that brings the warehouse to the data through a unique cloud-scale architecture that eliminates complex and costly data movement.

Built on the Cloudera Altus Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) foundation, Altus Analytic DB delivers instant self-service BI and SQL analytics to anyone, easily, reliably, and securely. Furthermore, by leveraging the Shared Data Experience (SDX), the same data and catalog is accessible for analysts, data scientists, data engineers, and others using the tools they prefer – SQL, Python, R – all without any data movement.

For many enterprises, challenges with existing analytic environments have resulted in a number of limitations for both business analysts and IT. Constraints on resources mean critical reporting and SLAs are given priority while limiting self-service access for other queries and workloads.

To support additional workloads and access beyond SQL, data silos have proliferated, resulting in inefficiencies managing the multiple data copies, difficulties in applying consistent security policies, and governance issues. While business users struggle to analyse data across these silos and limiting the ability to collaborate with groups including data scientists and data engineers.

Cloudera Altus Analytic DB removes those limitations through the speed and scale of the cloud. Central to Altus Analytic DB is its unique architecture that brings the warehouse to the data, enabling direct and iterative access to all data in cloud object storage.

This simple, yet powerful design delivers dramatic benefits for IT, business analysts, as well as non-SQL users.

IT benefits from simple PaaS operations to easily and elastically provision limitless isolated resources on-demand, with simple multi-tenant management and consistent security policies and governance.
Business analysts get immediate self-service access to all data without risking critical SLAs, and with predictable performance no matter how many other reports or queries are running. Additionally, they can continue to leverage existing tools and skills, including integrations with leading BI and integration tools such as Arcadia Data, Informatica, Qlik, Tableau, Zoomdata, and others.
With no need to move data into the database, shared data and associated data schemas and catalog are always available for iterative access beyond just SQL, so data scientists, data engineers, and others can seamlessly collaborate.

“With Cloudera’s unique architecture, we have helped our customers modernise their data warehouse both on-premises and in cloud environments,” said Charles Zedlewski, senior vice president, Product at Cloudera. “Cloudera Altus Analytic DB continues that trajectory, making it even easier for analysts to get dedicated, self-service access for BI and SQL analytics, all with an enterprise focus.

With no need to move data into the Cloudera Altus platform, users can quickly spin up clusters for business reporting, exploration, and even use Altus Data Engineering to deploy data pipelines, all over the same data and Shared Data Experience without impacting performance or SLAs.”

Key capabilities of Cloudera Altus Analytic DB

Cloudera Altus Analytic DB, built with the leading high-performance SQL query engine, Apache Impala (recently graduated to a […]

The post Cloudera announces the upcoming beta release of Cloudera Altus Analytic DB appeared first on IoT Now – How to run an IoT enabled business.

Read more here:: www.m2mnow.biz/feed/

Convergence of Big Data, IoT and AI to Drive Next Generation Applications

By A.R. Guess

by Angela Guess A new press release reports, “Big Data Analytics is bringing a step change in innovation across all sectors of the economy for efficient data management. Disruptive technology innovations in the information and communication technology (ICT) space, such as artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), self-service visualization and structured query language(SQL), have […]

The post Convergence of Big Data, IoT and AI to Drive Next Generation Applications appeared first on DATAVERSITY.

Read more here:: www.dataversity.net/feed/

AI Seen Better Suited to IoT Than Big Data

By George Leopold

More cold water is being thrown on the notion that AI might be the next big thing for big data. Rather, a new survey finds that AI branches such as machine learning are perceived as be more useful for applications such as Internet of Things deployments where automation tools can be used to streamline business operations.

By contrast, the survey of a thousand or so IT professionals by market research GlobalData found continuing “heavy reliance” on business intelligence tools, with 40 percent ranking BI above all other tools for analyzing data. Hence, the researcher concludes, AI is likely to play a larger role on IoT deployment than data analytics.

The downside, the survey finds, is that “with the broad market trend toward the democratization of data now well-established, such do-it-all BI software platforms have already given way to numerous smaller, more discrete ways of deriving value from enterprise data,” including direct SQL query, predictive data modelers and auto-generated data discovery visualizations.

Meanwhile, of the list of key benefits associated with IoT deployments, analytics applications such as “enhanced insight and decision-making” finished dead last among respondents, trailing considerations such as using AI to automate operations and help reduce costs.

The researcher concludes that much of the misalignment between AI and data analytics stems from centralization, which is seen as the basis of traditional BI analysis and reporting along with predictive modeling. “Where AI is most valuable, however is at the edge,” GlobalData notes. “IoT deployments need to employ tools like [machine learning], not centrally, but at the edge, close to the device itself.

“And like today’s enterprise software, those analytics endeavors should be brief and to the point, and focused on solving specific challenges,” the researcher continued.

Other branches of AI such as deep learning may prove more broadly applicable to analytics as well as IoT. In the case of deep learning, the researcher argues that combinations of smaller decision-making algorithms can be used to create “a larger, seemingly intelligent system.”

Industry veterans sometimes lump IoT together with traditional applications such as predictive analytics and big data, generally. For instance, Tom Siebel, who’s latest venture is called C3 IoT, described to Datanami earlier this year a list of emerging “vectors” that include AI, big data, cloud computing and IoT.

“Those are the horses that we’re riding, and those vectors appear to be converging,” Siebel said. “With those technologies, we’re able to solve classes of problems that were previously unsolvable.”

Recent items:

Q&A With C3 IoT’s Tom Siebel

Data, Security Frameworks Emerge FOR IoT

The post AI Seen Better Suited to IoT Than Big Data appeared first on Datanami.

Read more here:: www.datanami.com/feed/

RFC 1885 – Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for IPv6 (OBSOLETE)

 
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.

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

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:

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:

(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.

(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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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].

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.

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