idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list. -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (March 9, 2010) is 5155 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC 4862' is mentioned on line 427, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1981 (Obsoleted by RFC 8201) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2401 (Obsoleted by RFC 4301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2411 (Obsoleted by RFC 6071) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2671 (Obsoleted by RFC 6891) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3484 (Obsoleted by RFC 6724) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3775 (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4835 (Obsoleted by RFC 7321) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4941 (Obsoleted by RFC 8981) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 793 (Obsoleted by RFC 9293) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3736 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4306 (Obsoleted by RFC 5996) Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz 3 Internet-Draft SRI International 4 Intended status: Informational J. Loughney 5 Expires: September 10, 2010 Nokia 6 T. Narten 7 IBM Corporation 8 March 9, 2010 10 IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis 11 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt 13 Abstract 15 This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected 16 that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. 17 Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function 18 well and interoperate in a large number of situations and 19 deployments. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 28 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 29 Drafts. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 39 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 40 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2010. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the BSD License. 59 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 60 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 61 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 62 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 63 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 64 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 65 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 66 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 67 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 68 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 69 than English. 71 Table of Contents 73 1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 74 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79 5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 8 83 5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 8 84 5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 86 5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 87 5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 88 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 89 5.8. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 90 5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 9 91 5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 9 92 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 93 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 94 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 10 95 5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 10 96 5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 10 97 6. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 98 6.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 99 6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 100 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 101 6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration . . . . . . . . 11 102 6.2.2. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 12 103 6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 104 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 105 7. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 106 7.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 107 7.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 108 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 109 8. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 110 9. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 111 9.1. Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 112 9.2. Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 113 9.3. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 114 9.4. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 115 10. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 116 10.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 117 10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 15 118 10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 15 120 11. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 121 11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 15 122 11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 123 11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 124 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 125 12. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 126 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 127 14. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 128 14.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 16 129 14.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 16 130 15. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 131 16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 132 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 133 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 134 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 135 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 137 1. Requirements Language 139 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 140 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 141 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 143 2. Introduction 145 The goal of this document is to define the common functionality 146 required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will 147 implement optional or additional features, but this document collects 148 and summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track 149 documents in one place. 151 This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and 152 references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an 153 Applicability Statement and provide guidance as to which IPv6 154 specifications should be implemented in the general case. This 155 document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs. 157 Although the document points to different specifications, it should 158 be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are 159 smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define 160 multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory. 162 As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact 163 usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is 164 that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: 166 Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from 167 others [RFC0793]. 169 2.1. Scope of This Document 171 IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be 172 deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, 173 it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure 174 interoperability. 176 This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum 177 requirements specified here. 179 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 181 From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460], 182 we have the following definitions: 184 Description of an IPv6 Node 186 - a device that implements IPv6. 188 Description of an IPv6 router 190 - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to 191 itself. 193 Description of an IPv6 Host 195 - any node that is not a router. 197 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 199 ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode 200 AH Authentication Header 201 DAD Duplicate Address Detection 202 ESP Encapsulating Security Payload 203 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol 204 IKE Internet Key Exchange 205 MIB Management Information Base 206 MLD Multicast Listener Discovery 207 MTU Maximum Transfer Unit 208 NA Neighbor Advertisement 209 NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access 210 ND Neighbor Discovery 211 NS Neighbor Solicitation 212 NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection 213 PPP Point-to-Point Protocol 214 PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit 215 SVC Switched Virtual Circuit 217 4. Sub-IP Layer 219 An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer 220 specifications. Which link-layer specifications are included will 221 depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available 222 on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support 223 IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others. 225 As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new 226 specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the 227 link-layers for which an IPv6 specification has been developed. It 228 is provided for information purposes only, and may not be complete. 230 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464] 231 - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] 232 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks 233 Specification [RFC2590] 234 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146] 235 - Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) 236 Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338] 237 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] 238 - Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 239 802.16 Networks [RFC5121] 240 - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] 242 In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible 243 to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: 245 - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address 246 Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] 247 - Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels 248 [RFC2529] 250 5. IP Layer 252 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 254 The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This 255 specification MUST be supported. 257 Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options 258 extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460. 260 The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. 262 Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment 263 headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of 264 sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY 265 be supported. 267 RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these 268 headers. 270 A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the 271 following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0), 272 Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating 273 Security Payload [RFC2460]. 275 An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is 276 Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to 277 security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized 278 routing type. 280 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 282 Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. [RFC4861] states: 284 Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP 285 over a particular link type) this document applies to all link 286 types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of 287 its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA 288 links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those 289 services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering 290 the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services 291 described in this document that are not directly dependent on 292 multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor 293 Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as 294 specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on 295 NBMA links is an area for further study. 297 Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows: 299 Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an 300 attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for 301 implementations. 303 Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes 304 that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link. 305 Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. Neighbor 306 Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths 307 between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths 308 between routers. However, when a node receives a unicast Neighbor 309 Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST 310 respond to it (i.e., send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement). 312 Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting 313 link-layer multicast (RFC 4862, Section 5.4, specifies DAD MUST take 314 place on all unicast addresses). 316 A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations. 318 Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for 319 host implementations. The ability to understand specific Router 320 Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the specification 321 where the RA is specified. 323 Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor 324 Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are 325 required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). 327 Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router, 328 Redirect functionality MUST be supported. 330 5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 332 SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) 333 [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor 334 Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4 335 counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain 336 classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some 337 implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment 338 experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF 339 working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on 340 additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for 341 deployment. 343 At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide 344 SEND functionality. 346 5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 348 Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router 349 Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends 350 the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this 351 writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2 352 are available for future assignment. No flags have been defined that 353 make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is no 354 requirement to implement the option today. However, implementations 355 that are able to pass unrecognized options to a higher level entity 356 that may be able to understand them (e.g., a user-level process using 357 a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to handle the option in 358 anticipation of a future usage. 360 5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 362 5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 364 From [RFC2460]: 366 It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU 367 Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of 368 path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 369 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to 370 sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit 371 implementation of Path MTU Discovery. 373 The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and 374 reassembly. 376 5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 378 IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. 380 5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 382 ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. 384 5.8. Addressing 386 5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 388 The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. 390 5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 392 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC4862]. 393 This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts. 394 Static address can be supported as well. 396 Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses 397 as described in RFC 4862 [RFC4862]. 399 From 4862: 401 The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies 402 only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses 403 information advertised by routers, routers will need to be 404 configured by some other means. However, it is expected that 405 routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism 406 described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to 407 successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure 408 described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning 409 them to an interface. 411 Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported. 413 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 415 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] 416 addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is 417 concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem 418 arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes 419 its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless 420 Address Autoconfiguration [RFC 4862], the Interface Identifier 421 portion of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. 422 Thus, although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes 423 its point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those 424 addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track 425 the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its 426 pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise 427 privacy concerns as described in [RFC 4862]. 429 In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, 430 such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides 431 limited or no benefit. 433 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 435 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 436 [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 437 nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses. 439 5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 441 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 442 [RFC3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; 443 see Section 6.2 for DHCPv6 support. 445 Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be 446 unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses, aside from link-local addresses, 447 when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed 448 address configuration) set and that contains no prefixes advertised 449 for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see Section 4.5.2). 450 Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration 451 information, such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is 452 connected to a link over which the node receives a router 453 advertisement in which the 'O' flag (Other stateful configuration) is 454 set. 456 5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 458 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 459 [RFC3590]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive 460 and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used 461 on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and 462 requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. 464 Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 465 [RFC3810]. However, if the node has applications that only need 466 support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement 467 MLDv1 [RFC2710] instead. If the node has applications that need 468 support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], [RFC4607], the node 469 MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. In all cases, nodes are strongly 470 encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a 471 single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on 472 the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode. 474 When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the 475 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be 476 followed. 478 6. DNS and DHCP 480 6.1. DNS 482 DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596]. 483 Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need 484 to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. 485 However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure 486 capability that applications rely on and generally needs to be 487 supported. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement 488 stub-resolver [RFC1034] functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, 489 with support for: 491 - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; 492 - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; 493 - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 494 octets. 496 Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions 497 [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035]. 499 Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 500 Resource Records [RFC3363]. 502 6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 504 6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration 506 The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment 507 can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon 508 receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'M' flag set is described 509 in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. 511 In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 nodes that use 512 DHCP for address assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 513 addresses and other configuration information, as described in 514 Section 5.5.2 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for 515 address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements. 517 6.2.2. Other Configuration Information 519 The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other 520 configuration information can obtain other configuration information 521 upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'O' flag set is 522 described in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. 524 Those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration 525 information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon 526 receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described 527 in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP 528 for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router 529 Advertisements. 531 An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to 532 obtain other configuration information. 534 6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 536 Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 537 are expected to determine their default router information and on- 538 link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. 540 7. IPv4 Support and Transition 542 IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. 544 7.1. Transition Mechanisms 546 7.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 547 4213 549 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] 550 MUST be supported. 552 8. Mobility 554 Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776] 555 [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the 556 Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All 557 communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as 558 expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP 559 includes requirements for the following types of nodes: 561 - mobile nodes 562 - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization 563 - home agents 564 - all IPv6 routers 566 At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation 567 and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed 568 an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. 569 Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- 570 mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555]. 572 More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before 573 any one can be recommended for broad implementation in all hosts and 574 routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and associated 575 standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this time. 577 9. Security 579 This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node. 581 9.1. Basic Architecture 583 Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC4301] MUST be 584 supported. 586 9.2. Security Protocols 588 ESP [RFC4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC4302] MAY be supported. 590 9.3. Transforms and Algorithms 592 Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms 593 for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and 594 HMAC-MD5-96. However, 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 595 Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835] contains the current set of 596 mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies 597 algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be 598 promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes SHOULD conform 599 to the requirements in [RFC4835], as well as the requirements 600 specified below. 602 Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support 603 for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC2410] and the NULL 604 authentication algorithm [RFC4303] MUST be provided to maintain 605 consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However, 606 while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT 607 both be NULL. The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for 608 debugging. 610 The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC2405] SHOULD NOT be supported 611 within ESP. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed 612 in 'DESDIFF', 'DESINT', and 'DESCRACK'. DES-CBC is still listed as 613 required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will 614 be published in the near future. DES provides 56 bits of protection, 615 which is no longer considered sufficient. 617 The use of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC2404] within AH and ESP 618 MUST be supported. The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC2403] 619 within AH and ESP MAY also be supported. 621 The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC2451] does not suffer from the 622 same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm within 623 ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability. 625 The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC3602] MUST also be supported within 626 ESP. AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and 627 efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the 628 current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future. 630 9.4. Key Management Methods 632 An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the 633 security key and SPI. The SPI configuration is needed in order to 634 delineate between multiple keys. 636 Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management 637 systems include IKEv2 [RFC4306] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include 638 key management functions. 640 Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand 641 creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying 642 MUST be supported. 644 Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on 645 by the MSEC WG. 647 10. Router-Specific Functionality 649 This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that 650 act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- 651 specific requirements. 653 10.1. General 655 10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 657 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop 658 Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP 659 [RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be 660 implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are 661 implemented. See Section 4.6. 663 10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 665 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST 666 be supported. 668 11. Network Management 670 Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 671 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only 672 possible way of controlling these nodes. 674 11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 676 The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an 677 SNMP agent. 679 11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 681 IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that 682 support an SNMP agent. 684 11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 686 IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP 687 agent. 689 12. Open Issues 691 1. Should we try and tackle the confusion related to the M and O 692 bits in Router Advertisements? (probably not in this document -- 693 see previous point.) 694 2. Security Recommendations needs updating. Are they still correct? 695 And what is value of mandating IPsec if there is no key 696 management? Also, what is the sense of mandating IPsec for 697 limited-functionality devices that have a limited number of 698 applications, each using their own security? Relax current 699 requirement or leave as is? 701 13. Security Considerations 703 This document does not affect the security of the Internet, but 704 implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of 705 security features to ensure security on the Internet. 'IP Security 706 Document Roadmap' [RFC2411] is important for everyone to read. 708 The security considerations in RFC 2460 state the following: 710 The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security 711 Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC2401]. 713 RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for 714 the security features of IPv6. 716 14. Authors and Acknowledgments 718 14.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 720 14.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 722 The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the 723 IPv6 Node Requirements design team: 725 Jari Arkko 726 jari.arkko@ericsson.com 727 Marc Blanchet 728 marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 729 Samita Chakrabarti 730 samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com 731 Alain Durand 732 alain.durand@sun.com 733 Gerard Gastaud 734 gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr 735 Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 736 itojun@iijlab.net 737 Atsushi Inoue 738 inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 739 Masahiro Ishiyama 740 masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 741 John Loughney 742 john.loughney@nokia.com 743 Rajiv Raghunarayan 744 raraghun@cisco.com 745 Shoichi Sakane 746 shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com 747 Dave Thaler 748 dthaler@windows.microsoft.com 749 Juha Wiljakka 750 juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com 752 The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian 753 Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas 754 Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to 755 Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to 756 Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs. 758 15. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 760 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicabity 761 statement 763 2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols 765 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 766 added some more RFCs. 768 4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY) 770 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance 771 to recommendation 773 6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs [ 775 16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 777 This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294 779 1. Section 5.1, removed "and DNAME" from the discussion about RFC- 780 3363. 782 2. RFC 2463 references updated to RFC 4443. 784 3. RFC 3513 references updated to RFC 4291. 786 4. RFC 3152 references updated to RFC 3596. 788 5. RFC 2893 references updated to RFC 4213. 790 6. AH [RFC4302] support chanced from MUST to MAY. 792 7. The reference for RFC 3152 has been deleted, as the RFC has been 793 obsoleted, and has been incorporated into RFC 3596. 795 8. The reference for RFC 3879 has been removed as the material from 796 RFC 3879 has been incorporated into RFC 4291. 798 17. References 800 17.1. Normative References 802 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 803 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 805 [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery 806 for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. 808 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 809 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 811 [RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the 812 Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. 814 [RFC2403] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within 815 ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998. 817 [RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within 818 ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. 820 [RFC2405] Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher 821 Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998. 823 [RFC2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and 824 Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998. 826 [RFC2411] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security 827 Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998. 829 [RFC2451] Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher 830 Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998. 832 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 833 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 835 [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", 836 RFC 2671, August 1999. 838 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 839 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, 840 October 1999. 842 [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", 843 RFC 2711, October 1999. 845 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 846 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 847 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 849 [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. 850 Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) 851 Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, 852 August 2002. 854 [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet 855 Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. 857 [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast 858 Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, 859 September 2003. 861 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 862 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 863 October 2003. 865 [RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher 866 Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602, 867 September 2003. 869 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 870 in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 872 [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to 873 Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and 874 Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. 876 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery 877 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 879 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 880 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 882 [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, 883 April 2006. 885 [RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the 886 Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006. 888 [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the 889 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 891 [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, 892 December 2005. 894 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 895 RFC 4303, December 2005. 897 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 898 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 899 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 901 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 902 IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. 904 [RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 905 Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and 906 Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007. 908 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 909 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 910 September 2007. 912 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 913 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 915 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 916 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 917 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 919 [RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over 920 PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. 922 [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation 923 of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, 924 December 2007. 926 17.2. Informative References 928 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 929 RFC 793, September 1981. 931 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 932 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 934 [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 935 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 936 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 938 [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet 939 Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. 941 [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM 942 Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. 944 [RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 945 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999. 947 [RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of 948 IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", 949 RFC 2590, May 1999. 951 [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", 952 RFC 2675, August 1999. 954 [RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets 955 over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001. 957 [RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific 958 Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. 960 [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 961 (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. 963 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure 964 Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. 966 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 967 RFC 3972, March 2005. 969 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 970 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 971 RFC 4033, March 2005. 973 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 974 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 975 RFC 4034, March 2005. 977 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 978 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 979 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 981 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 982 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 984 [RFC4306] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", 985 RFC 4306, December 2005. 987 [RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of 988 IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets 989 over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006. 991 [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through 992 Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, 993 February 2006. 995 [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with 996 IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, 997 April 2007. 999 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, 1000 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 1001 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. 1003 [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. 1004 Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 1005 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, 1006 February 2008. 1008 [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and 1009 Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. 1011 Authors' Addresses 1013 Ed Jankiewicz 1014 SRI International 1015 Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 1016 USA 1018 Phone: 1019 Email: ed.jankiewicz@sri.com 1020 John Loughney 1021 Nokia 1022 955 Page Mill Road 1023 Palo Alto 94303 1024 USA 1026 Phone: +1 650 283 8068 1027 Email: john.loughney@nokia.com 1029 Thomas Narten 1030 IBM Corporation 1031 3039 Cornwallis Ave. 1032 PO Box 12195 1033 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1034 USA 1036 Phone: +1 919 254 7798 1037 Email: narten@us.ibm.com