| < draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt | draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-09.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTERNET-DRAFT R. Hinden, Nokia | INTERNET-DRAFT R. Hinden, Nokia | |||
| November 16, 2004 B. Haberman, JHU-APL | January 21, 2005 B. Haberman, JHU-APL | |||
| Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses | Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses | |||
| <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt> | <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-09.txt> | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions | This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions | |||
| of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each | of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each | |||
| author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of | author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of | |||
| which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of | which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of | |||
| which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with | which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with | |||
| RFC 3668. | RFC 3668. | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶ | |||
| 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." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This internet draft expires on May 21, 2005. | This internet draft expires on July 26, 2005. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally | This document defines an IPv6 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. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1.0 Introduction....................................................2 | 1.0 Introduction....................................................2 | |||
| 2.0 Acknowledgments.................................................3 | 2.0 Acknowledgments.................................................3 | |||
| 3.0 Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses....................................3 | 3.0 Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses....................................3 | |||
| 3.1 Format..........................................................3 | 3.1 Format..........................................................3 | |||
| 3.1.1 Background....................................................4 | 3.1.1 Background....................................................4 | |||
| 3.2 Global ID.......................................................5 | 3.2 Global ID.......................................................5 | |||
| 3.2.1 Locally Assigned Global IDs...................................5 | 3.2.1 Locally Assigned Global IDs...................................5 | |||
| 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm.............6 | 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm.............5 | |||
| 3.2.3 Analysis of the Uniqueness of Global IDs......................6 | 3.2.3 Analysis of the Uniqueness of Global IDs......................6 | |||
| 3.3 Scope Definition................................................7 | 3.3 Scope Definition................................................7 | |||
| 4.0 Operational Guidelines..........................................7 | 4.0 Operational Guidelines..........................................7 | |||
| 4.1 Routing.........................................................7 | 4.1 Routing.........................................................7 | |||
| 4.2 Renumbering and Site Merging....................................8 | 4.2 Renumbering and Site Merging....................................8 | |||
| 4.3 Site Border Router and Firewall Packet Filtering................8 | 4.3 Site Border Router and Firewall Packet Filtering................8 | |||
| 4.4 DNS Issues......................................................9 | 4.4 DNS Issues......................................................9 | |||
| 4.5 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues....................9 | 4.5 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues....................9 | |||
| 4.6 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses for Local Communications...........10 | 4.6 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses for Local Communications...........10 | |||
| 4.7 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses with VPNs..........................11 | 4.7 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses with VPNs..........................11 | |||
| 5.0 Advantages and Disadvantages...................................11 | 5.0 Global Routing Considerations..................................11 | |||
| 6.0 Security Considerations........................................12 | 5.1 From the Standpoint of the Internet............................11 | |||
| 7.0 IANA Considerations............................................12 | 5.2 From the Standpoint of a Site..................................12 | |||
| 8.0 References.....................................................12 | 6.0 Advantages and Disadvantages...................................12 | |||
| 8.1 Normative References...........................................12 | 7.0 Security Considerations........................................13 | |||
| 8.2 Informative References.........................................13 | 8.0 IANA Considerations............................................13 | |||
| 9.0 Authors' Addresses.............................................13 | 9.0 References.....................................................13 | |||
| 10.0 Change Log....................................................15 | 9.1 Normative References...........................................13 | |||
| 11.0 Disclaimer of Validity........................................17 | 9.2 Informative References.........................................14 | |||
| 12.0 Copyright Statement...........................................17 | 10.0 Authors' Addresses............................................15 | |||
| 11.0 Change Log....................................................16 | ||||
| 12.0 Intellectual Property.........................................18 | ||||
| 13.0 Disclaimer of Validity........................................19 | ||||
| 14.0 Copyright Statement...........................................19 | ||||
| 1.0 Introduction | 1.0 Introduction | |||
| This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally | This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally | |||
| unique and is intended for local communications [IPV6]. These | unique and is intended for local communications [IPV6]. These | |||
| addresses are called Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses and are | addresses are called Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses and are | |||
| abbreviated in this document as Local IPv6 addresses. They are not | abbreviated in this document as Local IPv6 addresses. They are not | |||
| expected to be routable on the global Internet. They are routable | expected to be routable on the global Internet. They are routable | |||
| inside of a more limited area such as a site. They may also be | inside of a more limited area such as a site. They may also be | |||
| routed between a limited set of sites. | routed between a limited set of sites. | |||
| Local IPv6 unicast addresses have the following characteristics: | Local IPv6 unicast addresses have the following characteristics: | |||
| - Globally unique prefix. | - Globally unique prefix (with high probability of uniqueness). | |||
| - 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 or privately interconnected without | - Allows sites to be combined or privately interconnected without | |||
| creating any address conflicts or requiring renumbering of | creating any address conflicts or requiring renumbering of | |||
| interfaces using these 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. | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 33 ¶ | |||
| border routers, DNS, application support, VPN usage, and guidelines | border routers, DNS, application support, VPN usage, and guidelines | |||
| for how to use for local communication inside a site. | 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 Local IPv6 addresses described in | The underlying idea of creating Local IPv6 addresses described in | |||
| this document been proposed a number of times by a variety of people. | this document has been proposed a number of times by a variety of | |||
| The authors of this draft do not claim exclusive credit. Credit goes | people. The authors of this draft do not claim exclusive credit. | |||
| to Brian Carpenter, Christian Huitema, Aidan Williams, Andrew White, | Credit goes to Brian Carpenter, Christian Huitema, Aidan Williams, | |||
| Charlie Perkins, and many others. The authors would also like to | Andrew White, Charlie Perkins, and many others. The authors would | |||
| thank Brian Carpenter, Charlie Perkins, Harald Alvestrand, Keith | also like to thank Brian Carpenter, Charlie Perkins, Harald | |||
| Moore, Margaret Wasserman, Shannon Behrens, Alan Beard, Hans Kruse, | Alvestrand, Keith Moore, Margaret Wasserman, Shannon Behrens, Alan | |||
| Geoff Huston, Pekka Savola, Christian Huitema, Tim Chown, Steve | Beard, Hans Kruse, Geoff Huston, Pekka Savola, Christian Huitema, Tim | |||
| Bellovin, Alex Zinin, Tony Hain, and Bill Fenner for their comments | Chown, Steve Bellovin, Alex Zinin, Tony Hain, Bill Fenner, Sam | |||
| and suggestions on this document. | Hartman, and Elwyn Davies for their comments and suggestions on this | |||
| document. | ||||
| 3.0 Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses | 3.0 Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses | |||
| 3.1 Format | 3.1 Format | |||
| The Local IPv6 addresses are created using a pseudo-randomly | The Local IPv6 addresses are created using a pseudo-randomly | |||
| allocated global ID. They have the following format: | allocated global ID. They have the following format: | |||
| | 7 bits |1| 40 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits | | | 7 bits |1| 40 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits | | |||
| +--------+-+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ | +--------+-+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ | |||
| | prefix |L| global ID | subnet ID | interface ID | | | Prefix |L| Global ID | Subnet ID | Interface ID | | |||
| +--------+-+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ | +--------+-+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ | |||
| Where: | Where: | |||
| prefix FC00::/7 prefix to identify Local IPv6 unicast | Prefix FC00::/7 prefix to identify Local IPv6 unicast | |||
| addresses. | addresses. | |||
| L Set to 1 if the prefix is locally assigned, | L Set to 1 if the prefix is locally assigned. | |||
| Set to 0 if it is centrally assigned. See | Set to 0 may be defined in the future. See | |||
| section 3.2 for additional information. | section 3.2 for additional information. | |||
| global ID 40-bit global identifier used to create a | Global ID 40-bit global identifier used to create a | |||
| globally unique prefix. See section 3.2 for | globally unique prefix. See section 3.2 for | |||
| additional information. | additional 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 interface ID as defined in [ADDARCH]. | Interface ID 64-bit Interface ID as defined in [ADDARCH]. | |||
| 3.1.1 Background | 3.1.1 Background | |||
| There were a range of choices available when choosing the size of the | There were 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] and the number of resulting /48 prefixes per person. A range | [POPUL] and the number of resulting /48 prefixes per person. A range | |||
| of prefix choices is shown in the following table: | of prefix choices is shown in the following table: | |||
| Prefix Global ID Number of Prefixes % of IPv6 | Prefix Global ID Number of Prefixes % of IPv6 | |||
| Length /48 Prefixes per Person Address Space | Length /48 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 the global ID field does not require internal structure, and | because the Global ID field does not require internal structure, and | |||
| there is no reason to be able to aggregate the prefixes. | there is no reason to be able to aggregate the prefixes. | |||
| The authors believe that a /7 prefix resulting in a 40 bit global ID | The authors believe that a /7 prefix resulting in a 41 bit Global ID | |||
| is a good choice. It provides for a large number of assignments | space (including the L bit) is a good choice. It provides for a | |||
| (i.e., 2.2 trillion) and at the same time uses less than .8% of the | large number of assignments (i.e., 2.2 trillion) and at the same time | |||
| total IPv6 address space. It is unlikely that this space will be | uses less than .8% of the total IPv6 address space. It is unlikely | |||
| exhausted. If more than this were to be needed, then additional IPv6 | that this space will be exhausted. If more than this were to be | |||
| address space could be allocated for this purpose. | needed, then additional IPv6 address space could be allocated for | |||
| this purpose. | ||||
| 3.2 Global ID | 3.2 Global ID | |||
| The allocation of global IDs should be pseudo-random [RANDOM]. They | The allocation of Global IDs is pseudo-random [RANDOM]. They MUST | |||
| should not be assigned sequentially or with well known numbers. This | NOT be assigned sequentially or with well known numbers. This is to | |||
| is to ensure that there is not any relationship between allocations | ensure that there is not any relationship between allocations and to | |||
| and to help clarify that these prefixes are not intended to be routed | help clarify that these prefixes are not intended to be routed | |||
| globally. Specifically, these prefixes are not designed to | globally. Specifically, these prefixes are not designed to | |||
| aggregate. | aggregate. | |||
| There are two ways to allocate Global IDs. These are centrally by a | This document defines a specific local method to allocate Global IDs, | |||
| allocation authority and locally by the site. The type of allocation | indicated by setting the L bit to 1. Another method, indicated by | |||
| is distinguished by the L bit. | clearing the L bit, may be defined later. Apart from the allocation | |||
| method, all Local IPv6 addresses behave and are treated identically. | ||||
| Two assignment methods are included because they have different | ||||
| properties. The centrally assigned global IDs are uniquely assigned. | ||||
| The local assignments are self generated and do not need any central | The local assignments are self generated and do not need any central | |||
| coordination or assignment, but have a lower (but still adequate) | coordination or assignment, but have an extremely high probability of | |||
| probability of being unique. It is expected that large managed sites | being unique. | |||
| will prefer central assignments and small or disconnected sites will | ||||
| prefer local assignments. It is recommended that sites planning to | ||||
| use Local IPv6 addresses for extensive inter-site communication, | ||||
| initially or as a future possibility, use a centrally assigned prefix | ||||
| as there is no possibility of assignment conflicts. Sites are free | ||||
| to choose either approach. | ||||
| This document only defines the allocation procedure for creating | ||||
| global-IDs for locally assigned local IPv6 addresses (i.e., L=1). | ||||
| The allocation procedure for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses | ||||
| (i.e., L=0) will be defined in a separate document. | ||||
| 3.2.1 Locally Assigned Global IDs | 3.2.1 Locally Assigned Global IDs | |||
| Global IDs can be generated locally by an individual site. This | Locally assigned Global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random | |||
| makes it easy to get a prefix without 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 3.2.2 describes a | algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. Section 3.2.2 describes a | |||
| suggested algorithm. It is important to ensure a reasonable | suggested algorithm. It is important that all sites generating | |||
| likelihood uniqueness that all sites generating a Global IDs use a | Global IDs use a functionally similar algorithm to ensure there is a | |||
| functionally similar algorithm. | high probability of uniqueness. | |||
| The use of a pseudo-random algorithm to generate global IDs in the | The use of a pseudo-random algorithm to generate Global IDs in the | |||
| locally assigned prefix gives an assurance that any network numbered | locally assigned prefix gives an assurance that any network numbered | |||
| using such a prefix is highly unlikely to have that address space | using such a prefix is highly unlikely to have that address space | |||
| clash with any other network that has another locally assigned prefix | clash with any other network that has another locally assigned prefix | |||
| allocated to it. This is a particularly useful property when | allocated to it. This is a particularly useful property when | |||
| considering a number of scenarios including networks that merge, | considering a number of scenarios including networks that merge, | |||
| overlapping VPN address space, or hosts mobile between such networks. | overlapping VPN address space, or hosts mobile between such networks. | |||
| 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm | 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm | |||
| The algorithm described below is intended to be used for locally | The algorithm described below is intended to be used for locally | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶ | |||
| cannot be obtained or created, a suitably unique identifier, | cannot be obtained or created, a suitably unique identifier, | |||
| local to the node, should be used (e.g. system serial number). | local to the node, should be used (e.g. system serial number). | |||
| 3) Concatenate the time of day with the system-specific identifier | 3) Concatenate the time of day with the system-specific identifier | |||
| creating a key. | creating a key. | |||
| 4) Compute an SHA-1 digest on the key as specified in [FIPS, SHA1]; | 4) Compute an SHA-1 digest on the key as specified in [FIPS, SHA1]; | |||
| the resulting value is 160 bits. | the resulting value is 160 bits. | |||
| 5) Use the least significant 40 bits as the Global ID. | 5) Use the least significant 40 bits as the Global ID. | |||
| 6) Concatenate FC00::/7, the L bit set to 1, and the 40 bit Global | 6) Concatenate FC00::/7, the L bit set to 1, and the 40 bit Global | |||
| ID to create a Local IPv6 address prefix. | ID to create a Local IPv6 address prefix. | |||
| This algorithm will result in a global ID that is reasonably unique | This algorithm will result in a Global ID that is reasonably unique | |||
| and can be used to create a locally assigned local IPv6 address | and can be used to create a locally assigned Local IPv6 address | |||
| prefix. | prefix. | |||
| 3.2.3 Analysis of the Uniqueness of Global IDs | 3.2.3 Analysis of the Uniqueness of Global IDs | |||
| The selection of a pseudo random global ID is similar to the | The selection of a pseudo random Global ID is similar to the | |||
| selection of an SSRC identifier in RTP/RTCP defined in section 8.1 of | selection of an SSRC identifier in RTP/RTCP defined in section 8.1 of | |||
| [RTP]. This analysis is adapted from that document. | [RTP]. This analysis is adapted from that document. | |||
| Since global IDs are chosen randomly (and independently), it is | Since Global IDs are chosen randomly (and independently), it is | |||
| possible that separate networks have chosen the same global ID. For | possible that separate networks have chosen the same Global ID. For | |||
| any given network with one or more random global IDs that has inter- | any given network with one or more random Global IDs that has inter- | |||
| connections to other such networks, having a total of N such IDs, the | connections to other such networks, having a total of N such IDs, the | |||
| probability of that two or more of these IDs will collide can be | probability that two or more of these IDs will collide can be | |||
| approximated using the formula: | approximated using the formula: | |||
| P = 1 - exp(-N**2 / 2**(L+1)) | P = 1 - exp(-N**2 / 2**(L+1)) | |||
| approximates the probability of collision (where N is the number | where P is the probability of collision, N is the number of | |||
| connections and L is the length of the global ID). | interconnected Global IDs, and L is the length of the Global ID. | |||
| The following table shows the probability of a collision for a range | The following table shows the probability of a collision for a range | |||
| of connections using a 40 bit global ID field. | of connections using a 40 bit Global ID field. | |||
| Connections Probability of Collision | Connections Probability of Collision | |||
| 2 1.81*10^-12 | 2 1.81*10^-12 | |||
| 10 4.54*10^-11 | 10 4.54*10^-11 | |||
| 100 4.54*10^-09 | 100 4.54*10^-09 | |||
| 1000 4.54*10^-07 | 1000 4.54*10^-07 | |||
| 10000 4.54*10^-05 | 10000 4.54*10^-05 | |||
| Based on this analysis the uniqueness of locally generated global IDs | Based on this analysis the uniqueness of locally generated Global IDs | |||
| is adequate for sites planning a small to moderate amount of inter- | is adequate for sites planning a small to moderate amount of inter- | |||
| site communication using locally generated global IDs. Sites | site communication using locally generated Global IDs. | |||
| planning more extensive inter-site communication should consider | ||||
| using the centrally assigned global ID. | ||||
| 3.3 Scope Definition | 3.3 Scope Definition | |||
| By default, the scope of these addresses is global. That is, they | By default, the scope of these addresses is global. That is, they | |||
| are not limited by ambiguity like the site-local addresses defined in | are not limited by ambiguity like the site-local addresses defined in | |||
| [ADDARCH]. Rather, these prefixes are globally unique, and as such, | [ADDARCH]. Rather, these prefixes are globally unique, and as such, | |||
| their applicability is greater than site-local addresses. Their | their applicability is greater than site-local addresses. Their | |||
| limitation is in the routability of the prefixes, which is limited to | limitation is in the routability of the prefixes, which is limited to | |||
| a site and any explicit routing agreements with other sites to | a site and any explicit routing agreements with other sites to | |||
| propagate them. Also, unlike site-locals, a site may have more than | propagate them (also see section 4.1). Also, unlike site-locals, a | |||
| one of these prefixes and use them at the same time. | site may have more than one of these prefixes and use them at the | |||
| same time. | ||||
| 4.0 Operational Guidelines | 4.0 Operational Guidelines | |||
| The guidelines in this section do not require any change to the | The guidelines in this section do not require any change to the | |||
| normal routing and forwarding functionality in an IPv6 host or | normal routing and forwarding functionality in an IPv6 host or | |||
| router. These are configuration and operational usage guidelines. | router. These are configuration and operational usage guidelines. | |||
| 4.1 Routing | 4.1 Routing | |||
| Local IPv6 addresses are designed to be routed inside of a site in | Local IPv6 addresses are designed to be routed inside of a site in | |||
| the same manner as other types of unicast addresses. They can be | the same manner as other types of unicast addresses. They can be | |||
| carried in any IPv6 routing protocol without any change. | carried in any IPv6 routing protocol without any change. | |||
| It is expected that they would share the same subnet IDs with | It is expected that they would share the same Subnet IDs with | |||
| provider based global unicast addresses if they were being used | provider based global unicast addresses if they were being used | |||
| concurrently [GLOBAL]. | concurrently [GLOBAL]. | |||
| The default behavior of exterior routing protocol sessions between | The default behavior of exterior routing protocol sessions between | |||
| administrative routing regions must be to ignore receipt of and not | administrative routing regions must be to ignore receipt of and not | |||
| advertise prefixes in the FC00::/7 block. A network operator may | advertise prefixes in the FC00::/7 block. A network operator may | |||
| specifically configure prefixes longer than FC00::/7 for inter-site | specifically configure prefixes longer than FC00::/7 for inter-site | |||
| communication. | communication. | |||
| If BGP is being used at the site border with an ISP, the default BGP | If BGP is being used at the site border with an ISP, the default BGP | |||
| configuration must filter out any Local IPv6 address prefixes, both | configuration must filter out any Local IPv6 address prefixes, both | |||
| incoming and outgoing. It must be set both to keep any Local IPv6 | incoming and outgoing. It must be set both to keep any Local IPv6 | |||
| address prefixes from being advertised outside of the site as well as | address prefixes from being advertised outside of the site as well as | |||
| to keep these prefixes from being learned from another site. The | to keep these prefixes from being learned from another site. The | |||
| exception to this is if there are specific /48 or longer routes | exception to this is if there are specific /48 or longer routes | |||
| created for one or more Local IPv6 prefixes. | created for one or more Local IPv6 prefixes. | |||
| For link-state IGPs, it is suggested that a site utilizing ULA | For link-state IGPs, it is suggested that a site utilizing IPv6 local | |||
| prefixes be contained either within one IGP domain or area. By | addresses prefixes be contained either within one IGP domain or area. | |||
| containing a ULA prefix to a single link-state area or domain, the | By containing an IPv6 local address prefix to a single link-state | |||
| distribution of prefixes can be controlled. | area or domain, the distribution of prefixes can be controlled. | |||
| 4.2 Renumbering and Site Merging | 4.2 Renumbering and Site Merging | |||
| The use of Local IPv6 addresses in a site results in making | The use of Local IPv6 addresses in a site results in making | |||
| communication using these addresses independent of renumbering a | communication using these addresses independent of renumbering a | |||
| site's provider based global addresses. | site's provider based global addresses. | |||
| When merging multiple sites the addresses created with these prefixes | When merging multiple sites the addresses created with these prefixes | |||
| are unlikely to need to be renumbered because all of the addresses | are unlikely to need to be renumbered because all of the addresses | |||
| have a high probability of being unique. Routes for each specific | have a high probability of being unique. Routes for each specific | |||
| prefix would have to be configured to allow routing to work correctly | prefix would have to be configured to allow routing to work correctly | |||
| between the formerly separate sites. | between the formerly separate sites. | |||
| 4.3 Site Border Router and Firewall Packet Filtering | 4.3 Site Border Router and Firewall Packet 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 routers be configured by default to keep any packets with Local | that routers be configured by default to keep any packets with Local | |||
| IPv6 destination addresses from leaking outside of the site and to | IPv6 addresses from leaking outside of the site and to keep any site | |||
| keep any site prefixes from being advertised outside of their site. | prefixes from being advertised outside of their site. | |||
| Site border routers should be configured to install a "reject" route | ||||
| for the Local IPv6 prefix FC00::/7. This will ensure that packets | ||||
| with Local IPv6 destination addresses will not be forwarded outside | ||||
| of the site via a default route. Site border routers should respond | ||||
| with the appropriate ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message to inform | ||||
| the source that the packet was not forwarded [ICMPV6]. This feedback | ||||
| is important to avoid transport protocol timeouts. | ||||
| Site border routers and firewalls should be configured to not forward | Site border routers and firewalls should be configured to not forward | |||
| any packets with Local IPv6 source or destination addresses outside | any packets with Local IPv6 source or destination addresses outside | |||
| of the site unless they have been explicitly configured with routing | of the site unless they have been explicitly configured with routing | |||
| information about specific /48 or longer Local IPv6 prefixes. The | information about specific /48 or longer Local IPv6 prefixes. This | |||
| will ensure that packets with Local IPv6 destination addresses will | ||||
| not be forwarded outside of the site via a default route. The | ||||
| default behavior of these devices should be to install a "reject" | default behavior of these devices should be to install a "reject" | |||
| route for these prefixes. Site border routers should respond with | route for these prefixes. Site border routers should respond with | |||
| the appropriate ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message to inform the | the appropriate ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message to inform the | |||
| source that the packet was not forwarded. | source that the packet was not forwarded. [ICMPV6]. This feedback is | |||
| important to avoid transport protocol timeouts. | ||||
| Routers that maintain peering arrangements between Autonomous Systems | Routers that maintain peering arrangements between Autonomous Systems | |||
| throughout the Internet should obey the recommendations for site | throughout the Internet should obey the recommendations for site | |||
| border routers unless configured otherwise. | border routers unless configured otherwise. | |||
| 4.4 DNS Issues | 4.4 DNS Issues | |||
| At the present time AAAA and PTR records for locally assigned local | At the present time AAAA and PTR records for locally assigned local | |||
| IPv6 addresses are not recommended to be installed in the global DNS. | IPv6 addresses are not recommended to be installed in the global DNS. | |||
| The operational issues relating to this are beyond the scope of this | The operational issues relating to this are beyond the scope of this | |||
| document. | document. | |||
| For background on this recommendation, the concern about adding AAAA | For background on this recommendation, the concern about adding AAAA | |||
| and PTR records to the global DNS for locally assigned local IPv6 | and PTR records to the global DNS for locally assigned Local IPv6 | |||
| addresses stems from the lack of complete assurance that the prefixes | addresses stems from the lack of complete assurance that the prefixes | |||
| are unique. There is a small possibility that the same PTR record | are unique. There is a small possibility that the same PTR record | |||
| might be registered by two different organizations. Due to this | might be registered by two different organizations. Due to this | |||
| concern, adding AAAA records is thought to be unwise because matching | concern, adding AAAA records is thought to be unwise because matching | |||
| PTR records can not be registered | PTR records can not be registered | |||
| 4.5 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues | 4.5 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues | |||
| Application and other higher level protocols can treat Local IPv6 | Application and other higher level protocols can treat Local IPv6 | |||
| addresses in the same manner as other types of global unicast | addresses in the same manner as other types of global unicast | |||
| addresses. No special handling is required. This type of addresses | addresses. No special handling is required. This type of address | |||
| may not be reachable, but that is no different from other types of | may not be reachable, but that is no different from other types of | |||
| IPv6 global unicast addresses. Applications need to be able to | IPv6 global unicast address. Applications need to be able to handle | |||
| handle multiple addresses that may or may not be reachable any point | multiple addresses that may or may not be reachable at any point in | |||
| in time. In most cases this complexity should be hidden in APIs. | time. In most cases this complexity should be hidden in APIs. | |||
| From a host's perspective this difference shows up as different | From a host's perspective this difference shows up as different | |||
| reachability than global unicast and could be handled by default that | reachability than global unicast and could be handled by default that | |||
| way. In some cases it is better for nodes and applications to treat | way. In some cases it is better for nodes and applications to treat | |||
| them differently from global unicast addresses. A starting point | them differently from global unicast addresses. A starting point | |||
| might be to give them preference over global unicast, but fall back | might be to give them preference over global unicast, but fall back | |||
| to global unicast if a particular destination is found to be | to global unicast if a particular destination is found to be | |||
| unreachable. Much of this behavior can be controlled by how they are | 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 | 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. | host can have both types of addresses and use them appropriately. | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 10 ¶ | |||
| Note that the address selection mechanisms of [ADDSEL], and in | Note that the address selection mechanisms of [ADDSEL], and in | |||
| particular the policy override mechanism replacing default address | particular the policy override mechanism replacing default address | |||
| selection, are expected to be used on a site where Local IPv6 | selection, are expected to be used on a site where Local IPv6 | |||
| addresses are configured. | addresses are configured. | |||
| 4.6 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses for Local Communication | 4.6 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses for Local Communication | |||
| Local IPv6 addresses, like global scope unicast addresses, are only | Local IPv6 addresses, like global scope unicast addresses, are only | |||
| assigned to nodes if their use has been enabled (via IPv6 address | assigned to nodes if their use has been enabled (via IPv6 address | |||
| autoconfiguration [ADDAUTO], DHCPv6 [DHCP6], or manually). They are | autoconfiguration [ADDAUTO], DHCPv6 [DHCP6], or manually). They are | |||
| not created automatically the way that IPv6 link-local addresses are | not created automatically in the way that IPv6 link-local addresses | |||
| and will not appear or be used unless they are purposely configured. | are and will not appear or be used unless they are purposely | |||
| configured. | ||||
| In order for hosts to autoconfigure Local IPv6 addresses, routers | In order for hosts to autoconfigure Local IPv6 addresses, routers | |||
| have to be configured to advertise Local IPv6 /64 prefixes in router | have to be configured to advertise Local IPv6 /64 prefixes in router | |||
| advertisements, or a DHCPv6 server must have been configured to | advertisements, or a DHCPv6 server must have been configured to | |||
| assign them. In order for a node to learn the Local IPv6 address of | assign them. In order for a node to learn the Local IPv6 address of | |||
| another node, the Local IPv6 address must have been installed in the | another node, the Local IPv6 address must have been installed in a | |||
| DNS or another naming system. For these reasons, it is straight | naming system (e.g., DNS, proprietary naming system, etc.) For these | |||
| forward to control their usage in a site. | reasons, it is straight forward to control their usage in a site. | |||
| To limit the use of Local IPv6 addresses the following guidelines | To limit the use of Local IPv6 addresses the following guidelines | |||
| apply: | apply: | |||
| - Nodes that are to only be reachable inside of a site: The local | - Nodes that are to only be reachable inside of a site: The local | |||
| DNS should be configured to only include the Local IPv6 | DNS should be configured to only include the Local IPv6 | |||
| addresses of these nodes. Nodes with only Local IPv6 addresses | addresses of these nodes. Nodes with only Local IPv6 addresses | |||
| must not be installed in the global DNS. | must not be installed in the global DNS. | |||
| - Nodes that are to be limited to only communicate with other | - Nodes that are to be limited to only communicate with other | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 14 ¶ | |||
| 4.7 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses with VPNs | 4.7 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses with VPNs | |||
| Local IPv6 addresses can be used for inter-site Virtual Private | Local IPv6 addresses can be used for inter-site Virtual Private | |||
| Networks (VPN) if appropriate routes are set up. Because the | Networks (VPN) if appropriate routes are set up. Because the | |||
| addresses are unique these VPNs will work reliably and without the | addresses are unique these VPNs will work reliably and without the | |||
| need for translation. They have the additional property that they | need for translation. They have the additional property that they | |||
| will continue to work if the individual sites are renumbered or | will continue to work if the individual sites are renumbered or | |||
| merged. | merged. | |||
| 5.0 Advantages and Disadvantages | 5.0 Global Routing Considerations | |||
| 5.1 Advantages | Section 4.1 provides operational guidelines that forbid default | |||
| routing of local addresses between sites. Concerns were raised to | ||||
| the IPv6 working group and to the IETF as a whole that sites may | ||||
| attempt to use local addresses as globally routed provider- | ||||
| independent addresses. This section describes why using local | ||||
| addresses as globally-routed provider-independent addresses is | ||||
| unadvisable. | ||||
| 5.1 From the Standpoint of the Internet | ||||
| There is a mismatch between the structure of IPv6 local addresses and | ||||
| the normal IPv6 wide area routing model. The /48 prefix of an IPv6 | ||||
| local addresses fits nowhere in the normal hierarchy of IPv6 unicast | ||||
| addresses. Normal IPv6 unicast addresses can be routed | ||||
| hierarchically down to physical subnet (link) level and only have to | ||||
| be flat-routed on the physical subnet. IPv6 local addresses would | ||||
| have to be flat-routed even over the wide area Internet. | ||||
| Thus, packets whose destination address is an IPv6 local address | ||||
| could be routed over the wide area only if the corresponding /48 | ||||
| prefix were carried by the wide area routing protocol in use, such as | ||||
| BGP. This contravenes the operational assumption that long prefixes | ||||
| will be aggregated into many fewer short prefixes, to limit the table | ||||
| size and convergence time of the routing protocol. If a network uses | ||||
| both normal IPv6 addresses [ADDARCH] and IPv6 local addresses, these | ||||
| types of address will certainly not aggregate with each other, since | ||||
| they differ from the most significant bit onwards. Neither will IPv6 | ||||
| local addresses aggregate with each other, due to their random bit | ||||
| patterns. This means that there would be a very significant | ||||
| operational penalty for attempting to use IPv6 local address prefixes | ||||
| generically with currently known wide area routing technology. | ||||
| 5.2 From the Standpoint of a Site | ||||
| There are a number of design factors in IPv6 local addresses that | ||||
| reduce the likelihood that IPv6 local addresses will be used as | ||||
| arbitrary global unicast addresses. These include: | ||||
| - The default rules to filter packets and routes make it very | ||||
| difficult to use IPv6 local addresses for arbitrary use across | ||||
| the Internet. For a site to use them as general purpose unicast | ||||
| addresses, they would have to make sure that the default rules | ||||
| were not being used by all other sites and intermediate ISPs | ||||
| used for their current and future communication. | ||||
| - They are not mathematically guaranteed to be unique and are not | ||||
| registered in public databases. Collisions, while highly | ||||
| unlikely, are possible and a collision can compromise the | ||||
| integrity of the communications. The lack of public | ||||
| registration creates operational problems. | ||||
| - The addresses are allocated randomly. If a site had multiple | ||||
| prefixes that they wanted to be used globally the cost of | ||||
| advertising them would be very high as they could not be | ||||
| aggregated. | ||||
| - They have a long prefix (i.e, /48) so a single local address | ||||
| prefix doesn't provide enough address space to be used | ||||
| exclusively by the largest organizations. | ||||
| 6.0 Advantages and Disadvantages | ||||
| 6.1 Advantages | ||||
| This approach has the following advantages: | This approach has the following advantages: | |||
| - Provides Local IPv6 prefixes that can be used independently of | - Provides Local IPv6 prefixes that can be used independently of | |||
| any provider based IPv6 unicast address allocations. This is | any provider based IPv6 unicast address allocations. This is | |||
| useful for sites not always connected to the Internet or sites | useful for sites not always connected to the Internet or sites | |||
| that wish to have a distinct prefix that can be used to localize | that wish to have a distinct prefix that can be used to localize | |||
| traffic inside of the site. | 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 11, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 4 ¶ | |||
| that wish to have a distinct prefix that can be used to localize | that wish to have a distinct prefix that can be used to localize | |||
| traffic inside of the site. | 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. | |||
| - Sites can be merged without any renumbering of the Local IPv6 | - Sites can be merged without any renumbering of the Local IPv6 | |||
| addresses. | addresses. | |||
| - Sites can change their provider based IPv6 unicast address | - Sites can change their provider based IPv6 unicast address | |||
| without disrupting any communication using Local IPv6 addresses. | without disrupting any communication using Local IPv6 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. | |||
| 5.2 Disadvantages | 6.2 Disadvantages | |||
| This approach has the following disadvantages: | This approach has the following disadvantages: | |||
| - Not possible to route Local IPv6 prefixes on the global Internet | - Not possible to route Local IPv6 prefixes on the global Internet | |||
| with current routing technology. Consequentially, it is | with current routing technology. Consequentially, it is | |||
| necessary to have the default behavior of site border routers to | necessary to have the default behavior of site border routers to | |||
| filter these addresses. | filter these addresses. | |||
| - There is a very low probability of non-unique locally assigned | - There is a very low probability of non-unique locally assigned | |||
| global IDs being generated by the algorithm in section 3.2.3. | Global IDs being generated by the algorithm in section 3.2.3. | |||
| This risk can be ignored for all practical purposes, but it | This risk can be ignored for all practical purposes, but it | |||
| leads to a theoretical risk of clashing address prefixes. | leads to a theoretical risk of clashing address prefixes. | |||
| 6.0 Security Considerations | 7.0 Security Considerations | |||
| Local IPv6 addresses do not provide any inherent security to the | Local IPv6 addresses do not provide any inherent security to the | |||
| nodes that use them. They may be used with filters at site | nodes that use them. They may be used with filters at site | |||
| boundaries to keep Local IPv6 traffic inside of the site, but this is | boundaries to keep Local IPv6 traffic inside of the site, but this is | |||
| no more or less secure than filtering any other type of global IPv6 | no more or less secure than filtering any other type of global IPv6 | |||
| unicast addresses. | unicast addresses. | |||
| Local IPv6 addresses do allow for address-based security mechanisms, | Local IPv6 addresses do allow for address-based security mechanisms, | |||
| including IPsec, across end to end VPN connections. | including IPsec, across end to end VPN connections. | |||
| 7.0 IANA Considerations | 8.0 IANA Considerations | |||
| The IANA is instructed to assign the FC00::/7 prefix for Unique Local | The IANA is instructed to assign the FC00::/7 prefix for Unique Local | |||
| IPv6 unicast addresses. | IPv6 unicast addresses. | |||
| 8.0 References | 9.0 References | |||
| 8.1 Normative References | 9.1 Normative References | |||
| [ADDARCH] Hinden, R., S. Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing | [ADDARCH] Hinden, R., S. Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing | |||
| Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. | Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. | |||
| [FIPS] "Federal Information Processing Standards Publication", | [FIPS] "Federal Information Processing Standards Publication", | |||
| (FIPS PUB) 180-1, Secure Hash Standard, 17 April 1995. | (FIPS PUB) 180-1, Secure Hash Standard, 17 April 1995. | |||
| [GLOBAL] Hinden, R., S. Deering, E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global Unicast | [GLOBAL] Hinden, R., S. Deering, E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global Unicast | |||
| Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003. | Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003. | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 28 ¶ | |||
| [RANDOM] Eastlake, D. 3rd, S. Crocker, J. Schiller, "Randomness | [RANDOM] Eastlake, D. 3rd, S. Crocker, J. Schiller, "Randomness | |||
| Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994. | Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994. | |||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP14, March 1997. | Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP14, March 1997. | |||
| [SHA1] D. Eastlake 3rd, P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 | [SHA1] D. Eastlake 3rd, P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 | |||
| (SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001. | (SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001. | |||
| 8.2 Informative References | 9.2 Informative References | |||
| [ADDAUTO] Thomson, S., T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address | [ADDAUTO] Thomson, S., T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address | |||
| Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. | Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. | |||
| [ADDSEL] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet | [ADDSEL] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet | |||
| Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. | Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. | |||
| [DHCP6] Droms, R., et. al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | [DHCP6] Droms, R., et. al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol | |||
| for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC3315, July 2003. | for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC3315, July 2003. | |||
| [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. | |||
| [RTP] Schulzrinne, H., S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson, | [RTP] Schulzrinne, H., S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson, | |||
| "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" | "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" | |||
| RFC3550, July 2003. | RFC3550, July 2003. | |||
| 9.0 Authors' Addresses | 10.0 Authors' Addresses | |||
| Robert M. Hinden | Robert M. Hinden | |||
| Nokia | Nokia | |||
| 313 Fairchild Drive | 313 Fairchild Drive | |||
| Mountain View, CA 94043 | Mountain View, CA 94043 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| phone: +1 650 625-2004 | phone: +1 650 625-2004 | |||
| email: bob.hinden@nokia.com | email: bob.hinden@nokia.com | |||
| Brian Haberman | Brian Haberman | |||
| Johns Hopkins University | Johns Hopkins University | |||
| Applied Physics Lab | Applied Physics Lab | |||
| 11100 Johns Hopkins Road | 11100 Johns Hopkins Road | |||
| Laurel, MD 20723 | Laurel, MD 20723 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| phone: +1 443 778 1319 | phone: +1 443 778 1319 | |||
| email: brian@innovationslab.net | email: brian@innovationslab.net | |||
| 10.0 Change Log | 11.0 Change Log | |||
| Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-09.txt> | ||||
| o Removed all mention of centrally assigned IPv6 local address | ||||
| addresses based on IESG comments. L=0 is left to be defined in | ||||
| the future. | ||||
| o Added new section titled "Global Routing Considerations" that | ||||
| discusses the issues relating to why using these addresses for | ||||
| general purpose unicast address on the global internet is not a | ||||
| good idea. | ||||
| o Several editorial changes. | ||||
| Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt> | Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt> | |||
| o Moved sections 4-10, into one new section 4.0 titled | o Moved sections 4-10, into one new section 4.0 titled | |||
| "operational guidelines" to clarify the their scope. | "operational guidelines" to clarify the their scope. | |||
| o Clarified routing requirements to make it clearer that these | o Clarified routing requirements to make it clearer that these | |||
| prefixes should not be routed on the global Internet. | prefixes should not be routed on the global Internet. | |||
| o Various editorial changes. | o Various editorial changes. | |||
| Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt> | Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt> | |||
| o Changed the format in section 3.1 in add a "L" (local/central) | o Changed the format in section 3.1 in add a "L" (local/central) | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 38 ¶ | |||
| document clearer. | document clearer. | |||
| o Changed pseudo-random algorithm to use SHA-1 instead of MD5. | o Changed pseudo-random algorithm to use SHA-1 instead of MD5. | |||
| o Moved [POPUL] to be an informative reference. | o Moved [POPUL] to be an informative reference. | |||
| o Added paragraph in Routing section to discuss the use of IGPs. | o Added paragraph in Routing section to discuss the use of IGPs. | |||
| o Various editorial changes. | o Various editorial changes. | |||
| Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-06.txt> | Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-06.txt> | |||
| o Clarify text to permit prefixes longer than /48 to be | o Clarify text to permit prefixes longer than /48 to be | |||
| configured. | configured. | |||
| o Changed text in section 7.0 to recommend that locally assigned | o Changed text in section 7.0 to recommend that locally assigned | |||
| ULA addresses are not installed in the global DNS and removed | IPv6 local addresses are not installed in the global DNS and | |||
| text about consequences of if they were installed in the global | removed text about consequences of if they were installed in the | |||
| DNS. | global DNS. | |||
| o Clarify the text in section 5.1 to state that there is a high | o Clarify the text in section 5.1 to state that there is a high | |||
| probability that there will be no address conflict when | probability that there will be no address conflict when | |||
| renumbering. | renumbering. | |||
| o Several minor editorial changes. | o Several minor editorial changes. | |||
| Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt> | Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt> | |||
| o Removed the definition and technical requirements for centrally | o Removed the definition and technical requirements for centrally | |||
| assigned local address. The Centrally assigned local addresses | assigned local address. The Centrally assigned local addresses | |||
| will be defined in a separate document. This document defines | will be defined in a separate document. This document defines | |||
| the specific prefixes to be used for centrally and locally | the specific prefixes to be used for centrally and locally | |||
| assigned IPv6 local addresses, but only the locally assigned | assigned IPv6 local addresses, but only the locally assigned | |||
| local addresses are defined here. | local addresses are defined here. | |||
| Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt> | Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt> | |||
| o Clarified text in section 3.2.1 that central assigned prefixes | o Clarified text in section 3.2.1 that central assigned prefixes | |||
| should be assigned under the authority of a single allocation | should be assigned under the authority of a single allocation | |||
| organization. | organization. | |||
| o Added step to suggested pseudo-random algorithm that in the case | o Added step to suggested pseudo-random algorithm that in the case | |||
| of centrally assigned prefixes the computed global IDs should be | of centrally assigned prefixes the computed Global IDs should be | |||
| verified against the escrow. | verified against the escrow. | |||
| o Added new text to section 3.2.2 that explains in more detail the | o Added new text to section 3.2.2 that explains in more detail the | |||
| need for pseudo-random global IDs (i.e., avoid duplicate | need for pseudo-random Global IDs (i.e., avoid duplicate | |||
| allocations). | allocations). | |||
| o Rewrote section 7.0 to describe DNS AAAA and PTR records, and | o Rewrote section 7.0 to describe DNS AAAA and PTR records, and | |||
| clarify when they might be installed in the global DNS. | clarify when they might be installed in the global DNS. | |||
| o Various editorial changes. | o Various editorial changes. | |||
| Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt> | Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt> | |||
| o Removed requirement of a fee per central allocation and updated | o Removed requirement of a fee per central allocation and updated | |||
| IANA considerations to reflect this. Rewrote text to focus on | IANA considerations to reflect this. Rewrote text to focus on | |||
| the requirement to avoid hoarding of allocations. | the requirement to avoid hoarding of allocations. | |||
| skipping to change at page 17, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 33 ¶ | |||
| "Local IPv6 addresses". | "Local IPv6 addresses". | |||
| o Several editorial changes. | o Several editorial changes. | |||
| Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-01.txt> | Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-01.txt> | |||
| o Added section on scope definition and updated application | o Added section on scope definition and updated application | |||
| requirement section. | requirement section. | |||
| o Clarified that, by default, the scope of these addresses is | o Clarified that, by default, the scope of these addresses is | |||
| global. | global. | |||
| o Renumbered sections and general text improvements | o Renumbered sections and general text improvements | |||
| o Removed reserved global ID values | o Removed reserved Global ID values | |||
| o Added pseudo code for local allocation submitted by Brian | o Added pseudo code for local allocation submitted by Brian | |||
| Haberman and added him as an author. | Haberman and added him as an author. | |||
| o Split Global ID values into centrally assigned and local | o Split Global ID values into centrally assigned and local | |||
| assignments and added text to describe local assignments | assignments and added text to describe local assignments | |||
| Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt> | Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt> | |||
| o Initial Draft | o Initial Draft | |||
| 11. Disclaimer of Validity | 12.0 Intellectual Property | |||
| The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | ||||
| Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to | ||||
| pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | ||||
| this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | ||||
| might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has | ||||
| made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information | ||||
| on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be | ||||
| found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. | ||||
| Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any | ||||
| assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an | ||||
| attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of | ||||
| such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this | ||||
| specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at | ||||
| http://www.ietf.org/ipr. | ||||
| The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any | ||||
| copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary | ||||
| rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement | ||||
| this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- | ||||
| ipr@ietf.org. | ||||
| 13.0 Disclaimer of Validity | ||||
| This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | |||
| "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | |||
| OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | |||
| ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | |||
| INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | |||
| INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | |||
| WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | |||
| 12. Copyright Statement | 14.0 Copyright Statement | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject | |||
| to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and | to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and | |||
| except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. | except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. | |||
| End of changes. 62 change blocks. | ||||
| 137 lines changed or deleted | 217 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/ | ||||