| < draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt | draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTERNET-DRAFT R. Hinden, Nokia | INTERNET-DRAFT R. Hinden, Nokia | |||
| May 7, 2003 | June 11, 2003 Brian Haberman, Caspian | |||
| Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Addresses | Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Addresses | |||
| <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt> | <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-01.txt> | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working | |||
| documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, | documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, | |||
| and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute | and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. | working documents as Internet-Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see | To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This internet draft expires on November 7, 2003. | This internet draft expires on December 16, 2003. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document defines an unicast address format that is globally | This document defines an unicast address format that is globally | |||
| unique and is intended for local communications, usually inside of a | unique and is intended for local communications, usually inside of a | |||
| site. They are not expected to be routable on the global Internet | site. They are not expected to be routable on the global Internet | |||
| given current routing technology. | given current routing technology. | |||
| 1.0 Introduction | 1.0 Introduction | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 19 ¶ | |||
| expected to be routable on the global Internet given current routing | expected to be routable on the global Internet given current routing | |||
| technology. They are routable inside of a more limited area such as | technology. They are routable inside of a more limited area such as | |||
| a site. They may also be routed between a limited set of sites. | a site. They may also be routed between a limited set of sites. | |||
| Globally unique IPv6 local addresses have the following | Globally unique IPv6 local addresses have the following | |||
| characteristics: | characteristics: | |||
| - Globally unique prefix. | - Globally unique prefix. | |||
| - Well known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site | - Well known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site | |||
| boundaries. | boundaries. | |||
| - Allows sites to be combined with out creating any address | - Allows sites to be combined or privately interconnected without | |||
| conflicts or require renumbering of interfaces using these | creating any address conflicts or require renumbering of | |||
| prefixes. | interfaces using these prefixes. | |||
| - Internet Service Provider independent and can be used for | - Internet Service Provider independent and can be used for | |||
| communications inside of a site without having any permanent or | communications inside of a site without having any permanent or | |||
| intermittent Internet connectivity. | intermittent Internet connectivity. | |||
| - If accidentally leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS, | - If accidentally leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS, | |||
| there is no conflict with any other addresses. | there is no conflict with any other addresses. | |||
| - No requirement for applications to treat these address | - In practice, applications may treat these address like global | |||
| differently from any other kind of global unicast addresses. | scoped addresses. | |||
| - These addresses are also candidates for end-to-end use in some | ||||
| classes of multihoming solutions. | ||||
| This document defines the format of Globally Unique IPv6 Local | This document defines the format of Globally Unique IPv6 Local | |||
| addresses, how to allocate them, and usage considerations including | addresses, how to allocate them, and usage considerations including | |||
| routing, site border routers, DNS, application support, VPN usage, | routing, site border routers, DNS, application support, VPN usage, | |||
| and guidelines for how to use for local communication inside a site. | and guidelines for how to use for local communication inside a site. | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. | |||
| 2.0 Acknowledgments | 2.0 Acknowledgments | |||
| The underlying idea of creating globally unique IPv6 local addresses | The underlying idea of creating globally unique IPv6 local addresses | |||
| describe in this document been proposed a number of times by a | describe in this document been proposed a number of times by a | |||
| variety of people. The author of this draft does not claim exclusive | variety of people. The authors of this draft does not claim | |||
| credit. Credit goes to Brian Carpenter, Christian Huitema, Aidan | exclusive credit. Credit goes to Brian Carpenter, Christian Huitema, | |||
| Williams, Andrew White, Michel Py, Charlie Perkins, and many others. | Aidan Williams, Andrew White, Michel Py, Charlie Perkins, and many | |||
| The author would also like to thank Brain Carpenter, Charlie Perkins, | others. The authors would also like to thank Brian Carpenter, | |||
| Harald Alvestrand, Keith Moore, Margaret Wasserman, and Michel Py for | Charlie Perkins, Harald Alvestrand, Keith Moore, Margaret Wasserman, | |||
| their comments and suggestions on this draft. | and Michel Py for their comments and suggestions on this draft. | |||
| 3.0 Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Address Format | 3.0 Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Addresses | |||
| 3.1 Format | ||||
| The globally unique IPv6 local addresses are created using a | The globally unique IPv6 local addresses are created using a | |||
| centrally allocated global ID. They have the following format: | centrally allocated global ID. They have the following format: | |||
| | n | | | n | | |||
| | bits | m bits | 16 bits | 64 bits | | | bits | m bits | 16 bits | 64 bits | | |||
| +--------+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ | +--------+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ | |||
| | prefix | global ID | subnet ID | interface ID | | | prefix | global ID | subnet ID | interface ID | | |||
| +--------+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ | +--------+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ | |||
| Where: | Where: | |||
| prefix prefix to identify Globally Unique IPv6 Local | prefix prefix to identify Globally Unique IPv6 Local | |||
| unicast addresses. | unicast addresses. | |||
| global ID global identifier used to create a globally | global ID global identifier used to create a globally | |||
| unique prefix. See section 3.1 for additional | unique prefix. See section 3.2 for additional | |||
| information. | information. | |||
| subnet ID 16-bit subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet | subnet ID 16-bit subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet | |||
| within the site. | within the site. | |||
| interface ID 64-bit IID as defined in [ADDARCH]. | interface ID 64-bit IID as defined in [ADDARCH]. | |||
| There are a range of choices available when choosing the size of the | There are a range of choices available when choosing the size of the | |||
| prefix and Global ID field length. There is a direct tradeoff | prefix and Global ID field length. There is a direct tradeoff | |||
| between having a Global ID field large enough to support foreseeable | between having a Global ID field large enough to support foreseeable | |||
| future growth and not using too much of the IPv6 address space | future growth and not using too much of the IPv6 address space | |||
| needlessly. A reasonable way of evaluating a specific field length | needlessly. A reasonable way of evaluating a specific field length | |||
| is to compare it to a projected 2050 world population of 9.3 billion | is to compare it to a projected 2050 world population of 9.3 billion | |||
| [POPUL]. A range of prefix choices is shown in the following table: | [POPUL] to compare the number of resulting /48 prefixes per person. | |||
| A range of prefix choices is shown in the following table: | ||||
| Prefix Global ID Number Prefixes Prefixes % of IPv6 | Prefix Global ID Number /48 Prefixes % of IPv6 | |||
| Length per Person Address Space | Length Prefixes per Person Address Space | |||
| /11 37 137,438,953,472 15 0.049% | /11 37 137,438,953,472 15 0.049% | |||
| /10 38 274,877,906,944 30 0.098% | /10 38 274,877,906,944 30 0.098% | |||
| /9 39 549,755,813,888 59 0.195% | /9 39 549,755,813,888 59 0.195% | |||
| /8 40 1,099,511,627,776 118 0.391% | /8 40 1,099,511,627,776 118 0.391% | |||
| /7 41 2,199,023,255,552 236 0.781% | /7 41 2,199,023,255,552 236 0.781% | |||
| /6 42 4,398,046,511,104 473 1.563% | /6 42 4,398,046,511,104 473 1.563% | |||
| A very high utilization ratio of these allocations can be assumed | A very high utilization ratio of these allocations can be assumed | |||
| because no internal structure is required in the field nor is there | because no internal structure is required in the field nor is there | |||
| any reason to be able to aggregate the prefixes. | any reason to be able to aggregate the prefixes. | |||
| The author believes that a /7 prefix resulting in a 41 bit Global ID | The authors believes that a /7 prefix resulting in a 41 bit Global ID | |||
| is a good choice. It provides for a large number of assignments | is a good choice. It provides for a large number of assignments | |||
| (i.e., 2.2 trillion) and at the same time uses less than .8% of the | (i.e., 2.2 trillion) and at the same time uses less than .8% of the | |||
| total IPv6 address space. It is unlikely that this space will be | total IPv6 address space. It is unlikely that this space will be | |||
| exhausted. If more than this was needed, then additional IPv6 | exhausted. If more than this was needed, then additional IPv6 | |||
| address space could be allocated for this purpose. | address space could be allocated for this purpose. | |||
| For the rest of this document the FC00::/7 prefix and a 41-bit Global | For the rest of this document the FC00::/7 prefix and a 41-bit Global | |||
| ID is used. | ID is used. | |||
| 3.1 Global ID | 3.2 Global ID | |||
| The Global ID values of zero and all ones are reserved for future use | The allocation of global IDs should be pseudo-random [RANDOM]. They | |||
| and must not be assigned. | should not be assigned sequentially or with well known numbers. This | |||
| to ensure that there is not any relationship between allocations and | ||||
| to help clarify that these prefixes are not intended to be routed | ||||
| globally. Specifically, these prefixes are designed to not | ||||
| aggregate. | ||||
| The allocation of global IDs should be pseudo-random. They should | There are two ways to allocate Global IDs. These are centrally by a | |||
| not be assigned sequentially or by locality. This to ensure that | allocation authority and locally by the site. The Global ID is split | |||
| there is not any relationship between allocations and to help clarify | into two parts for each type of allocation. The prefixes for each | |||
| that these prefixes are not intended to be routed globally. | type are: | |||
| Specifically, these prefixes are designed to not aggregate. | ||||
| FC00::/8 Centrally assigned | ||||
| FD00::/8 Locally assigned | ||||
| Each results in a 40-bit space to allocate. | ||||
| Two assignment methods are included because they have different | ||||
| properties. The centrally assigned global IDs have a much higher | ||||
| probability that they are unique and the assignments can be escrowed | ||||
| to resolve any disputes regarding duplicate assignments. The local | ||||
| assignments are free and do not need any central coordination or | ||||
| assignment, but have a lower (but still adequate) probability of | ||||
| being unique. It is expected that large managed sites will prefer | ||||
| central assignments and small or disconnected sites will prefer local | ||||
| assignments. Sites are free to choice either approach. | ||||
| 3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs | ||||
| Centrally assigned global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random | ||||
| algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. They should not be assigned | ||||
| sequentially or by locality. This to ensure that there is not any | ||||
| relationship between allocations and to help clarify that these | ||||
| prefixes are not intended to be routed globally. Specifically, these | ||||
| prefixes are designed to not aggregate. | ||||
| Global IDs should be assigned centrally by a single allocation | Global IDs should be assigned centrally by a single allocation | |||
| authority because they are pseudo-random and without any structure. | authority because they are pseudo-random and without any structure. | |||
| This is easiest to accomplish if there is a single source of the | This is easiest to accomplish if there is a single source of the | |||
| assignments. | assignments. | |||
| 3.1.1 Global ID Allocation Requirements | The requirements for centrally assigned global ID allocations are: | |||
| Global ID allocations should be | ||||
| - Available to anyone in an unbiased manner. | - Available to anyone in an unbiased manner. | |||
| - Permanent with no periodic fees. | - Permanent with no periodic fees. | |||
| - One time non-refundable allocation fee in the order of 10 Euros | - One time non-refundable allocation fee in the order of 10 Euros | |||
| per allocation. | per allocation. | |||
| - The ownership of each individual allocation should be private, | - The ownership of each individual allocation should be private, | |||
| but should be escrowed. | but should be escrowed. | |||
| The allocation authority should permit allocations to be obtained | The allocation authority should permit allocations to be obtained | |||
| without having any sort of internet connectivity. For example in | without having any sort of internet connectivity. For example in | |||
| addition to web based registration they should support some methods | addition to web based registration they should support some methods | |||
| like telephone, postal mail, fax, telex, etc. They should also | like telephone, postal mail, fax, telex, etc. They should also | |||
| accept a variety of payment methods and currencies. | accept a variety of payment methods and currencies. | |||
| The reason for the one time 10 Euro charge for each prefix is to | The reason for the one time 10 Euro charge for each prefix is to | |||
| provide a barrier to any hoarding of the these allocations but at the | provide a barrier to any hoarding of the these allocations but at the | |||
| same time keep the cost low enough to not create a barrier to anyone | same time keep the cost low enough to not create a barrier to anyone | |||
| needing one. The charge is non-refundable in order to keep overhead | needing one. The charge is non-refundable in order to keep overhead | |||
| low. | low. | |||
| The ownership of the allocations is not needed to be public since the | The ownership of the allocations is not needed to be public since the | |||
| resulting addresses are intended to be used for local communication. | resulting addresses are intended to be used for local communication. | |||
| It is escrowed to insure there are no duplicate allocations and in | It is escrowed to insure there are no duplicate allocations and in | |||
| case it is needed in the future. | case it is needed in the future (e.g., to resolve duplicate | |||
| allocation disputes). | ||||
| An example of a allocation authority is a non-profit organization | An example of a allocation authority is a non-profit organization | |||
| such as the Public Internet Registry (PIR) that the Internet Society | such as the Public Internet Registry (PIR) that the Internet Society | |||
| has created to manage the .org domain. They already know how to | has created to manage the .org domain. They already know how to | |||
| collect small sums efficiently and there are safeguards in place for | collect small sums efficiently and there are safeguards in place for | |||
| the appropriate use of any excess revenue generated. | the appropriate use of any excess revenue generated. | |||
| Note, there are many possible ways of of creating an allocation | Note, there are many possible ways of of creating an allocation | |||
| authority. It is important to keep in mind when reviewing | authority. It is important to keep in mind when reviewing | |||
| alternatives that the goal is to pick one that can do the job. It | alternatives that the goal is to pick one that can do the job. It | |||
| doesn't have to be perfect, only good enough to do the job at hand. | doesn't have to be perfect, only good enough to do the job at hand. | |||
| The author believes that the PIR would satisfy this requirement. | The authors believe that PIR shows that this requirement can be | |||
| satisfied, but this draft does not specifically recommend the choice | ||||
| of PIR. | ||||
| 3.3 Routing | 3.2.2 Locally Assigned Global IDs | |||
| Global IDs can also be generated locally by an individual site. This | ||||
| makes it easy to get a prefix with out the need to contact an | ||||
| assignment authority or internet service provider. There is not as | ||||
| high a degree of assurance that the prefix will not conflict with | ||||
| another locally generated prefix, but the likelihood of conflict is | ||||
| small. Sites that are not comfortable with this degree of | ||||
| uncertainty should use a centrally assigned global ID. | ||||
| Locally assigned global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random | ||||
| algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. Section 3.2.3 describes a | ||||
| suggested algorithm. It is important to insure a reasonable | ||||
| likelihood uniqueness that all sites generating a Global IDs use a | ||||
| functionally similar algorithm. | ||||
| 3.2.3 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm | ||||
| The algorithm described below is intended to be used for centrally | ||||
| and locally assigned Global IDs. In each case the resulting global | ||||
| ID will be used in the appropriate prefix as defined in section 3.2. | ||||
| 1) Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format [NTP]. | ||||
| 2) Obtain the birth date of the person running the algorithm (or | ||||
| one of his/her descendants or ancestors) in 64-bit NTP format. | ||||
| 3) Concatenate the time of day with the birth date resulting in a | ||||
| 128-bit value (i.e., TOD, Birthday). | ||||
| 4) Compute an MD5 digest on the 128-bit value as specified in | ||||
| [MD5DIG]. | ||||
| 5) Use the least significant 40 bits as the Global ID. | ||||
| This algorithm will result in a global ID that is reasonably unique | ||||
| and can be used as a Global ID. | ||||
| 3.3 Scope Definition | ||||
| By default, the scope of these addresses is global. That is, they | ||||
| are not limited by ambiguity like the site-local addresses defined in | ||||
| [ADDRARCH]. Rather, these prefixes are globally unique, and as such, | ||||
| their applicability exceeds the current site-local addresses. Their | ||||
| limitation is in the routability of the prefixes, which is limited to | ||||
| a site and any explicit routing agreements with other sites to | ||||
| propagate them. Also, unlike site-locals, these prefixes can overlap | ||||
| 4.0 Routing | ||||
| Globally IPv6 Local address are designed to be routed inside of a | Globally IPv6 Local address are designed to be routed inside of a | |||
| site in the same manner as other types of unicast addresses. They | site in the same manner as other types of unicast addresses. They | |||
| can be carried in any IPv6 routing protocol without any change. | can be carried in any IPv6 routing protocol without any change. | |||
| It is expected that they would share the same subnet IDs if provider | It is expected that they would share the same subnet IDs with | |||
| based global unicast addresses were being used concurrently [GLOBAL]. | provider based global unicast addresses if they were being used | |||
| concurrently [GLOBAL]. | ||||
| Any routing protocol that is used between sites is required to filter | Any routing protocol that is used between sites is required to filter | |||
| out any incoming or outgoing globally unique IPv6 local routes. The | out any incoming or outgoing globally unique IPv6 local routes. The | |||
| exception to this is if specific /48 globally unique IPv6 local | exception to this is if specific /48 globally unique IPv6 local | |||
| routes have been configured to allow for inter-site communication. | routes have been configured to allow for inter-site communication. | |||
| If BGP is being used at the site border with an ISP, by default | If BGP is being used at the site border with an ISP, by default | |||
| filters MUST be installed in the BGP configuration to keep any site- | filters MUST be installed in the BGP configuration to keep any site- | |||
| local prefixes from being advertised outside of the site or for site- | local prefixes from being advertised outside of the site or for site- | |||
| local prefixes to be learned from another site. The exception to | local prefixes to be learned from another site. The exception to | |||
| this is if there are specific /48 routes created for one or more | this is if there are specific /48 routes created for one or more | |||
| globally unique IPv6 local prefixes. | globally unique IPv6 local prefixes. | |||
| 3.4 Renumbering and Site Merging | 5.0 Renumbering and Site Merging | |||
| The use of globally unique IPv6 local addresses in a site results in | The use of globally unique IPv6 local addresses in a site results in | |||
| making communication using these addresses independent of renumbering | making communication using these addresses independent of renumbering | |||
| a site's provider based global addresses. | a site's provider based global addresses. | |||
| When merging multiple sites none of the addresses created with these | When merging multiple sites none of the addresses created with these | |||
| prefixes need to be renumbered because all of the addresses are | prefixes need to be renumbered because all of the addresses are | |||
| unique. Routes for each specific prefix would have to be configured | unique. Routes for each specific prefix would have to be configured | |||
| to allow routing to work correctly between the formerly separate | to allow routing to work correctly between the formerly separate | |||
| sites. | sites. | |||
| 3.5 Site Border Router and Firewall Filtering | 6.0 Site Border Router and Firewall Filtering | |||
| While no serious harm will be done if packets with these addresses | While no serious harm will be done if packets with these addresses | |||
| are sent outside of a site via a default route, it is recommended | are sent outside of a site via a default route, it is recommended | |||
| that they be filtered to keep any packets with globally unique IPv6 | that they be filtered to keep any packets with globally unique IPv6 | |||
| local destination addresses from leaking outside of the site and to | local destination addresses from leaking outside of the site and to | |||
| keep any site prefixes from being advertised outside of their site. | keep any site prefixes from being advertised outside of their site. | |||
| Site border routers SHOULD install a black hole route for the | Site border routers SHOULD install a black hole route for the | |||
| Globally Unique IPv6 Local prefix FC00::/7. This will insure that | Globally Unique IPv6 Local prefix FC00::/7. This will insure that | |||
| packets with Globally Unique IPv6 Local destination addresses will | packets with Globally Unique IPv6 Local destination addresses will | |||
| not be forwarded outside of the site via a default route. | not be forwarded outside of the site via a default route. | |||
| Site border routers and firewalls SHOULD NOT forward any packets with | Site border routers and firewalls SHOULD NOT forward any packets with | |||
| globally unique IPv6 local source or destination addresses outside of | globally unique IPv6 local source or destination addresses outside of | |||
| the site unless they have been explicitly configured with routing | the site unless they have been explicitly configured with routing | |||
| information about other globally unique IPv6 local prefixes. The | information about other globally unique IPv6 local prefixes. The | |||
| default behavior of these devices SHOULD be to filter them. | default behavior of these devices SHOULD be to filter them. | |||
| 3.6 DNS Issues | 7.0 DNS Issues | |||
| Globally Unique IPv6 Local addresses SHOULD NOT be installed in the | Globally Unique IPv6 Local addresses SHOULD NOT be installed in the | |||
| global DNS. They may be installed in a naming system local to the | global DNS. They may be installed in a naming system local to the | |||
| site or kept separate from the global DNS using techniques such as | site or kept separate from the global DNS using techniques such as | |||
| "two-faced" DNS. | "two-faced" DNS. | |||
| If globally unique IPv6 local address are configured in the global | If globally unique IPv6 local address are configured in the global | |||
| DNS, no harm is done because they are unique and will not create any | DNS, no harm is done because they are unique and will not create any | |||
| confusion. The may not be reachable, but this is a property that is | confusion. The may not be reachable, but this is a property that is | |||
| common to all types of global IPv6 unicast addresses. | common to all types of global IPv6 unicast addresses. | |||
| For future study names with globally unique IPv6 local addresses may | For future study names with globally unique IPv6 local addresses may | |||
| be resolved inside of the site using dynamic naming systems such as | be resolved inside of the site using dynamic naming systems such as | |||
| Multicast DNS. | Multicast DNS. | |||
| 3.7 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues | 8.0 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues | |||
| Application and other higher level protocols can treat Globally | Application and other higher level protocols can treat globally | |||
| Unique IPv6 Local addresses in the same manner as other types of | unique IPv6 local addresses in the same manner as other types of | |||
| global unicast addresses. No special handling is required. This | global unicast addresses. No special handling is required. This | |||
| type of addresses may not be reachable, but that is no different from | type of addresses may not be reachable, but that is no different from | |||
| other types of IPv6 global unicast addresses. Applications need to | other types of IPv6 global unicast addresses. Applications need to | |||
| be able to handle multiple addresses that may or may not be reachable | be able to handle multiple addresses that may or may not be reachable | |||
| any point in time. | any point in time. In most cases this complexity should be hidden in | |||
| APIs. | ||||
| 3.8 Use of Globally Unique IPv6 Local Addresses for Local Communications | From a host's perspective this difference shows up as different | |||
| reachability than global unicast and could be handled by default that | ||||
| way. In some cases it is better for nodes and applications to treat | ||||
| them differently from global unicast addresses. A starting point | ||||
| might be to give them preference over global unicast, but fall back | ||||
| to global unicast if a particular destination is found to be | ||||
| unreachable. Much of this behavior can be controlled by how they are | ||||
| allocated to nodes and put into the DNS. However it is useful if a | ||||
| host can have both types of addresses and use them appropriately. | ||||
| Note that the address selection mechanisms of [ADDSEL], and in | ||||
| particular the policy override mechanism replacing default address | ||||
| selection, are expected to be used on a site where globally unique | ||||
| IPv6 local addresses are configured. | ||||
| 9.0 Use of Globally Unique IPv6 Local Addresses for Local Communications | ||||
| IPv6 globally unique IPv6 local addresses, like global scope unicast | IPv6 globally unique IPv6 local addresses, like global scope unicast | |||
| addresses, are only assigned to nodes if their use has been enabled | addresses, are only assigned to nodes if their use has been enabled | |||
| (via IPv6 address autoconfiguration [ADDAUTO], DHCPv6 [DHCP6], or | (via IPv6 address autoconfiguration [ADDAUTO], DHCPv6 [DHCP6], or | |||
| manually) and configured in the DNS. They are not created | manually) and configured in the DNS. They are not created | |||
| automatically the way that IPv6 link-local addresses are and will not | automatically the way that IPv6 link-local addresses are and will not | |||
| appear or be used unless they are purposely configured. | appear or be used unless they are purposely configured. | |||
| In order for hosts to autoconfigure globally unique IPv6 local | In order for hosts to autoconfigure globally unique IPv6 local | |||
| addresses routers have to be configured to advertise globally unique | addresses routers have to be configured to advertise globally unique | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 11 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 7 ¶ | |||
| global addresses of these nodes. The local DNS may be | global addresses of these nodes. The local DNS may be | |||
| configured to also include the globally unique IPv6 local | configured to also include the globally unique IPv6 local | |||
| addresses of these nodes. | addresses of these nodes. | |||
| - Nodes that can communicate with other nodes inside of the site | - Nodes that can communicate with other nodes inside of the site | |||
| and outside of the site, should autoconfigure global addresses | and outside of the site, should autoconfigure global addresses | |||
| via [ADDAUTO] or receive global address via [DHCP6]. They may | via [ADDAUTO] or receive global address via [DHCP6]. They may | |||
| also obtain globally unique IPv6 local addresses via the same | also obtain globally unique IPv6 local addresses via the same | |||
| mechanisms. | mechanisms. | |||
| 3.9 Use of Globally Unique IPv6 Local Addresses with VPNs | 10.0 Use of Globally Unique IPv6 Local Addresses with VPNs | |||
| Globally unique IPv6 local addresses can be used for inter-site | Globally unique IPv6 local addresses can be used for inter-site | |||
| Virtual Private Networks (VPN) if appropriate routes are set up. | Virtual Private Networks (VPN) if appropriate routes are set up. | |||
| Because the addresses are unique these VPNs will work reliably and | Because the addresses are unique these VPNs will work reliably and | |||
| have the additional property that they will continue to work if the | without the need for translation. They have the additional property | |||
| individual sites are renumbered or merged. | that they will continue to work if the individual sites are | |||
| renumbered or merged. | ||||
| 4.0 Advantages and Disadvantages | 11.0 Advantages and Disadvantages | |||
| 4.1 Advantages | 11.1 Advantages | |||
| This approach has the following advantages: | This approach has the following advantages: | |||
| - Provides globally unique local prefixes that can be used | - Provides globally unique local prefixes that can be used | |||
| independently of any provider based IPv6 unicast address | independently of any provider based IPv6 unicast address | |||
| allocations. This is useful for sites not always connected to | allocations. This is useful for sites not always connected to | |||
| the Internet or sites that wish to have a distinct prefix that | the Internet or sites that wish to have a distinct prefix that | |||
| can be used to localize traffic inside of the site. | can be used to localize traffic inside of the site. | |||
| - Applications can treat these addresses in an identical manner as | - Applications can treat these addresses in an identical manner as | |||
| any other type of global IPv6 unicast addresses. | any other type of global IPv6 unicast addresses. | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 40 ¶ | |||
| unique IPv6 local addresses. | unique IPv6 local addresses. | |||
| - Sites can change their provider based IPv6 unicast address | - Sites can change their provider based IPv6 unicast address | |||
| without disrupting any communication using globally unique IPv6 | without disrupting any communication using globally unique IPv6 | |||
| local addresses. | local addresses. | |||
| - Well known prefix that allows for easy filtering at site | - Well known prefix that allows for easy filtering at site | |||
| boundary. | boundary. | |||
| - Can be used for inter-site VPNs. | - Can be used for inter-site VPNs. | |||
| - If accidently leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS, there | - If accidently leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS, there | |||
| is no conflict with any other addresses. | is no conflict with any other addresses. | |||
| 4.2 Disadvantages | 11.2 Disadvantages | |||
| This approach has the following disadvantages: | This approach has the following disadvantages: | |||
| - Not possible to route globally unique IPv6 local prefixes on the | - Not possible to route globally unique IPv6 local prefixes on the | |||
| global Internet with current routing technology. | global Internet with current routing technology. | |||
| - Requires the creation of a central allocation authority. | Consequentially, it is necessary to have the default behavior of | |||
| site border routers to filter these addresses. | ||||
| - There is a very low probability of non-unique locally assigned | ||||
| global IDs being generated by the algorithm in section 3.2.3. | ||||
| This risk can be ignored for all practical purposes, but it | ||||
| leads to a theoretical risk of clashing address prefixes. | ||||
| 5.0 Security Considerations | 12.0 Security Considerations | |||
| Globally unique IPv6 local addresses do not provide any inherent | Globally unique IPv6 local addresses do not provide any inherent | |||
| security to the nodes that use them. They may be used with filters | security to the nodes that use them. They may be used with filters | |||
| at site boundaries to keep globally unique IPv6 local traffic inside | at site boundaries to keep globally unique IPv6 local traffic inside | |||
| of the site, but this is no more or less secure than filtering any | of the site, but this is no more or less secure than filtering any | |||
| other type of global IPv6 unicast addresses. | other type of global IPv6 unicast addresses. | |||
| 6.0 IANA Considerations | Globally unique IPv6 local addresses do allow for address-based | |||
| security mechanisms, including IPSEC, across end to end VPN | ||||
| connections. | ||||
| The IANA should allocate the FC00::/7 prefix for Globally Unique IPv6 | 13.0 IANA Considerations | |||
| Local addresses. The Global ID values of zero and all ones are | ||||
| reserved for future use and should not be assigned. | ||||
| The IANA should setup a allocation authority for Globally Unique IPv6 | The IANA is instructed to allocate the FC00::/7 prefix for Globally | |||
| Local prefixes. This allocation authority should consistent with the | Unique IPv6 Local addresses. | |||
| requirements described in section 3.1 of this document. | ||||
| The IANA is instructed to delegate, within a reasonable time, the | ||||
| prefix FC00::/8 to an allocation authority for Globally Unique IPv6 | ||||
| Local prefixes of length /48. This allocation authority shall comply | ||||
| with the requirements described in section 3.2 of this document, | ||||
| including in particular the charging of a modest one-time fee, with | ||||
| any profit being used for the public good in connection with the | ||||
| Internet. | ||||
| 14.0 Change Log | ||||
| Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-01.txt> | ||||
| o Added section on scope definition and updated application | ||||
| requirement section. | ||||
| o Clarified that, by default, the scope of these addresses is | ||||
| global. | ||||
| o Renumbered sections and general text improvements | ||||
| o Removed reserved global ID values | ||||
| o Added pseudo code for local allocation submitted by Brian | ||||
| Haberman and added him as an author. | ||||
| o Split Global ID values into centrally assigned and local | ||||
| assignments and added text to describe local assignments | ||||
| Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt> | ||||
| o Initial Draft | ||||
| REFERENCES | REFERENCES | |||
| Normative | Normative | |||
| [ADDARCH] Hinden, R., S. Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing | [ADDARCH] Hinden, R., S. Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing | |||
| Architecture", RFC3515, April 2003. | Architecture", RFC3515, April 2003. | |||
| [GLOBAL] Hinden, R., S. Deering, E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global Unicast | [GLOBAL] Hinden, R., S. Deering, E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global Unicast | |||
| Address Format", Internet Draft, <draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast- | Address Format", Internet Draft, <draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast- | |||
| aggr-v2-02.txt>, February 2003. | aggr-v2-02.txt>, February 2003. | |||
| [IPV6] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 | [IPV6] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 | |||
| (IPv6) Specification", RFC2460, December 1998. | (IPv6) Specification", RFC2460, December 1998. | |||
| [MD5DIG] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC1321, | ||||
| April 1992. | ||||
| [NTP] Mills, David L., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) | ||||
| Specification, Implementation and Analysis", RFC1305, March | ||||
| 1992. | ||||
| [POPUL] Population Reference Bureau, "World Population Data Sheet | [POPUL] Population Reference Bureau, "World Population Data Sheet | |||
| of the Population Reference Bureau 2002", August 2002. | of the Population Reference Bureau 2002", August 2002. | |||
| [RANDOM] Eastlake, D. 3rd, S. Crocker, J. Schiller, "Randomness | ||||
| Recommendations for Security", RFC1750, December 1994. | ||||
| [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision | [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision | |||
| 3", RFC2026, BCP00009, October 1996. | 3", RFC2026, BCP00009, October 1996. | |||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", RFC2119, BCP14, March 1997. | Requirement Levels", RFC2119, BCP14, March 1997. | |||
| Non-Normative | Non-Normative | |||
| [ADDAUTO] Thomson, S., T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address | [ADDAUTO] Thomson, S., T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address | |||
| Autoconfiguration", RFC2462, December 1998. | Autoconfiguration", RFC2462, December 1998. | |||
| [DHCP6] Droms, R., et. al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | [DHCP6] Droms, R., et. al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | |||
| for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Internet Draft, <draft-ietf-dhc- | for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Internet Draft, <draft-ietf-dhc- | |||
| dhcpv6-28.txt>, November 2002. | dhcpv6-28.txt>, November 2002. | |||
| AUTHOR'S ADDRESS | [ADDSEL] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet | |||
| Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC3484, February 2003. | ||||
| AUTHOR'S ADDRESSES | ||||
| Robert M. Hinden | Robert M. Hinden | |||
| Nokia | Nokia | |||
| 313 Fairchild Drive | 313 Fairchild Drive | |||
| Mountain View, CA 94043 | Mountain View, CA 94043 | |||
| USA | US | |||
| phone: +1 650 625-2004 | phone: +1 650 625-2004 | |||
| email: bob.hinden@nokia.com | email: bob.hinden@nokia.com | |||
| Brian Haberman | ||||
| Caspian Networks | ||||
| 1 Park Drive, Suite 300 | ||||
| Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 | ||||
| US | ||||
| phone: +1-929-949-4828 | ||||
| email: brian@innovationslab.net | ||||
| End of changes. 42 change blocks. | ||||
| 62 lines changed or deleted | 201 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||