idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 (December 16, 2010) is 4880 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1981 (Obsoleted by RFC 8201) ** 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 4307 (Obsoleted by RFC 8247) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4835 (Obsoleted by RFC 7321) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4941 (Obsoleted by RFC 8981) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5006 (Obsoleted by RFC 6106) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5996 (Obsoleted by RFC 7296) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6106 (Obsoleted by RFC 8106) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 793 (Obsoleted by RFC 9293) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3736 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 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, Inc. 4 Intended status: Informational J. Loughney 5 Expires: June 19, 2011 Nokia 6 T. Narten 7 IBM Corporation 8 December 16, 2010 10 IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis 11 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.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 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). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2011. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 54 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 55 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 56 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 57 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 58 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 59 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 60 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 61 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 62 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 63 than English. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 8 77 5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 9 78 5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 81 5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 82 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 83 5.8. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 84 5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 9 85 5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 10 86 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 87 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 88 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 11 89 5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 11 90 5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 11 91 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host 92 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 93 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 94 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 95 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 96 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 97 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 13 98 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 99 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 100 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 101 Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 102 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 103 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 104 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 105 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 106 9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 107 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 14 108 10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 109 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 110 11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 111 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 112 12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 113 12.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 114 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 16 115 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 16 116 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 117 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 17 118 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 119 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 120 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 121 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 122 15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 123 16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 124 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 17 125 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 17 126 17. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 127 18. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 128 19. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 129 20. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 130 21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 131 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 132 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 133 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 134 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 136 1. Requirements Language 138 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 139 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 140 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 142 2. Introduction 144 The goal of this document is to define the common functionality 145 required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will 146 implement optional or additional features, but this document collects 147 and summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track 148 documents in one place. 150 This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and 151 references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an 152 Applicability Statement and provide guidance as to which IPv6 153 specifications should be implemented in the general case, and which 154 specification may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios. 155 This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs. 157 Although the document points to different specifications, it should 158 be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular 159 requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many 160 specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may 161 not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both 162 client and server behavior in the same specification, while many 163 implementations will be focused on only one of those roles. 165 This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a 166 device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range 167 of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range 168 of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this 169 document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is 170 perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to 171 define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific 172 usage and deployment environments. For example, this document does 173 not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some some deployment 174 scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For 175 example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for 176 specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments [DODv6] and 177 [USGv6]. 179 As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact 180 usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is 181 that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: 183 Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from 184 others [RFC0793]. 186 2.1. Scope of This Document 188 IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be 189 deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, 190 it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure 191 interoperability. 193 This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum 194 requirements specified here. 196 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 198 From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460], 199 we have the following definitions: 201 Description of an IPv6 Node 203 - a device that implements IPv6. 205 Description of an IPv6 router 207 - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to 208 itself. 210 Description of an IPv6 Host 212 - any node that is not a router. 214 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 216 ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode 217 AH Authentication Header 218 DAD Duplicate Address Detection 219 ESP Encapsulating Security Payload 220 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol 221 IKE Internet Key Exchange 222 MIB Management Information Base 223 MLD Multicast Listener Discovery 224 MTU Maximum Transfer Unit 225 NA Neighbor Advertisement 226 NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access 227 ND Neighbor Discovery 228 NS Neighbor Solicitation 229 NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection 230 PPP Point-to-Point Protocol 231 PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit 232 SVC Switched Virtual Circuit 234 4. Sub-IP Layer 236 An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer 237 specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation 238 should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the 239 hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant 240 IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on 241 others. 243 As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new 244 specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the 245 link-layers for which an IPv6 specification has been developed. It 246 is provided for information purposes only, and may not be complete. 248 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464] 249 - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] 250 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks 251 Specification [RFC2590] 252 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146] 253 - Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) 254 Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338] 255 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] 256 - Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 257 802.16 Networks [RFC5121] 258 - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] 260 In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible 261 to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: 263 - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address 264 Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] 265 - Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels 266 [RFC2529] 268 5. IP Layer 269 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 271 The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This 272 specification MUST be supported. 274 Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options 275 extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460. 277 The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. 279 Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment 280 headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of 281 sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY 282 be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in 283 [RFC5722]. 285 RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these 286 headers. 288 A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the 289 following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0), 290 Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating 291 Security Payload [RFC2460]. 293 An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is 294 Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to 295 security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized 296 routing type. 298 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 300 Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861] and was updated by 301 [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC4861 states: 303 Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP 304 over a particular link type) this document applies to all link 305 types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of 306 its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA 307 links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those 308 services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering 309 the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services 310 described in this document that are not directly dependent on 311 multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor 312 Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as 313 specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on 314 NBMA links is an area for further study. 316 Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows: 318 Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an 319 attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality. 321 Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes 322 that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link. 323 Hosts MUST support Prefix discovery. 325 Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for 326 all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. NUD is not required 327 for paths between routers. However, all nodes MUST respond to 328 unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages. 330 Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the 331 receiving of Router Advertisements. The ability to understand 332 individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting 333 the functionality making use of the particular option. 335 All nodes MUST support the Sending and Receiving of Neighbor 336 Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and 337 NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). 339 Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality. 340 Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily 341 for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting). Redirects 342 are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks 343 dominated by routers, redirects are typically disabled. The sending 344 of redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They 345 MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on 346 edge networks. 348 "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional 349 recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers. 350 RFC 4311 SHOULD be supported. 352 5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 354 SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) 355 [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor 356 Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4 357 counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain 358 classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some 359 implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment 360 experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF 361 working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on 362 additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for 363 deployment. 365 At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide 366 SEND functionality. 368 5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 370 Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router 371 Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends 372 the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this 373 writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2 374 remain available for future assignment. No flags have been defined 375 that make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is 376 no requirement to implement the option today. However, 377 implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a 378 higher level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a 379 user-level process using a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to 380 handle the option in anticipation of a future usage. 382 5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 384 5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 386 From [RFC2460]: 388 It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU 389 Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of 390 path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 391 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to 392 sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit 393 implementation of Path MTU Discovery. 395 The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet 396 fragmentation and reassembly. 398 5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 400 IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. 402 5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 404 ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- 405 Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported. 407 5.8. Addressing 409 5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 411 The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. 413 5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 415 Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as 416 defined in [RFC4862]. Static address may be supported as well. 418 Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses 419 as described in RFC 4862 [RFC4862]. 421 From 4862: 423 The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies 424 only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses 425 information advertised by routers, routers will need to be 426 configured by some other means. However, it is expected that 427 routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism 428 described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to 429 successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure 430 described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning 431 them to an interface. 433 All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from 434 Section 5.4 of RFC 4862: 436 Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast 437 addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of 438 whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration, 439 DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions 440 noted therein]. 442 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 444 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] 445 addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is 446 concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem 447 arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes 448 its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless 449 Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion 450 of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. Thus, 451 although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its 452 point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those 453 addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track 454 the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its 455 pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise 456 privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862]. 458 In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, 459 such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides 460 limited or no benefit. 462 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 464 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 465 [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. IPv6 nodes will need to deal 466 with multiple addresses configured simultaneously. 468 5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 470 DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a 471 network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router 472 Advertisements, DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration 473 of stateless address autoconfiguraiton is more widely implemented in 474 hosts than address configuration through DHCP. However, some 475 environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the 476 configuration of addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware 477 of what operating environment their devices will be deployed. Hosts 478 MAY implement address configuration via DHCP. 480 In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address 481 assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other 482 configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of 483 [RFC4862]. 485 5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 487 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 488 [RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive 489 and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used 490 on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and 491 requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. 493 Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement MLDv2 494 [RFC3810]. Specifically, if the node has applications that need 495 support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], the node MUST 496 support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], [RFC4604] and [RFC4607]. If 497 the node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast 498 (i.e, they do not use source-specific multicast), implementing MLDv1 499 [RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, nodes are strongly encouraged 500 to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a single 501 MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on the link 502 operate in version 1 compatibility mode. 504 When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the 505 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be 506 followed. 508 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration 510 In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating 511 configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements and DHCP. 512 Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed 513 essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are 514 configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the 515 Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, 516 DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general 517 parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That 518 said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option 519 should be configured via DHCP vs. an RA option has not always been 520 easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define 521 only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than 522 defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same 523 information. 525 One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same 526 information is that if a host chooses one mechanism, but the network 527 operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers. 528 For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant 529 influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what 530 configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to 531 ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected 532 hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices 533 may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize 534 interoperability in such environments hosts may need to implement 535 multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. 537 Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was 538 performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined, 539 but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router 540 Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published 541 as a Standards Track Document. Consequently, DNS configuration 542 information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs. 543 Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be 544 implemented. 546 7. DNS and DHCP 548 7.1. DNS 550 DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596]. 551 Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need 552 to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. 553 However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure 554 capability that applications rely on and most nodes will need to 555 provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034] 556 functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for: 558 - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; 559 - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; 560 - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 561 octets. 563 Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions 564 [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035]. 566 Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 567 Resource Records [RFC3363]. 569 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 571 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information 573 IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration 574 information (See Section 5.8.5) and to obtain additional (non- 575 address) configuration. If a host implementation supports 576 applications or other protocols that require configuration that is 577 only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For 578 specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present, 579 DHCP may not be necessary. 581 An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to 582 obtain other configuration information. 584 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 586 Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 587 are expected to determine their default router information and on- 588 link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. 590 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106 592 Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that 593 are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS 594 configuration was not included as an RA option and DHCP was the 595 recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time, 596 the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now 597 generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without 598 having access to a working DNS resolver. RFC 5006 was published as 599 an experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was 600 placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106]. 602 Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106]. 604 8. IPv4 Support and Transition 606 IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. 608 8.1. Transition Mechanisms 610 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 611 4213 613 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] 614 MUST be supported. 616 9. Application Support 618 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 620 Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in 621 text form SHOULD suppport "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text 622 Representation" [RFC5952]. 624 10. Mobility 626 Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776] 627 [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the 628 Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All 629 communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as 630 expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP 631 includes requirements for the following types of nodes: 633 - mobile nodes 634 - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization 635 - home agents 636 - all IPv6 routers 638 At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation 639 and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed 640 an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. 641 Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- 642 mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555]. 644 More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before 645 any one can be recommended for broad implementation in all hosts and 646 routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and associated 647 standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this time. 649 11. Security 651 This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. 653 Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational 654 procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate 655 management approaches, etc. are all components that impact the level 656 of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly, 657 deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can 658 significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular 659 security approach. 661 IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it 662 possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of) 663 communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes. 664 IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual 665 TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc. 667 Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such 668 usage has limited applicability and is not recommended. 670 A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today 671 (e.g., IPsec, TLS, SSH, etc.) No one approach has emerged as an 672 ideal technology for all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is 673 not viewed as the ideal security technology in all cases and is 674 unlikely to displace the others. 676 Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the 677 key management approach of IKE. This document updates that 678 recommendation by making support of the IP Security Architecture [RFC 679 4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 680 requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both 681 manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated 682 key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996]. 684 This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types 685 and environments where other approaches to security than IPsec can be 686 justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a 687 very limited number or type of applications and an application- 688 specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management 689 or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices my run on 690 extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full IP 691 Security Architecture is not justified. 693 11.1. Requirements 695 "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be 696 supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 697 requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both 698 manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated 699 key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required in 700 [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST 701 implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302]. 703 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms 705 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IP 706 Security Architecture are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm 707 Implementation Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes 708 implementing the IP Security Architecture MUST conform to the 709 requirements in [RFC4835]. Preferred cryptographic algorithms often 710 change more frequently than security protocols. Therefore 711 implementations MUST allow for migration to new algorithms, as 712 RFC4835 is replaced or updated in the future. 714 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are 715 defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key 716 Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)' [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 717 MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future 718 updates or replacements to [RFC4307]. 720 12. Router-Specific Functionality 722 This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that 723 act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- 724 specific requirements. 726 12.1. General 728 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 730 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop 731 Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP 732 [RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be 733 implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are 734 implemented. See Section 5.9. 736 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 738 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST 739 be supported. 741 Section 7 of RFC 3775 includes some mobility-specific extensions to 742 Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5, 743 even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality. 745 13. Network Management 747 Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 748 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only 749 possible way of controlling these nodes. 751 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 753 The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an 754 SNMP agent. 756 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 758 IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that 759 support an SNMP agent. 761 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 763 IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP 764 agent. 766 14. Security Considerations 768 This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, 769 beyond the security considerations associated with the individual 770 protocols. 772 Security is also discussed in Section 10 above. 774 15. IANA Considerations 776 This document has no requests for IANA. 778 16. Authors and Acknowledgments 780 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 782 To be filled out. 784 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 786 The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the 787 IPv6 Node Requirements design team: 789 Jari Arkko 790 jari.arkko@ericsson.com 791 Marc Blanchet 792 marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 793 Samita Chakrabarti 794 samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com 795 Alain Durand 796 alain.durand@sun.com 797 Gerard Gastaud 798 gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr 799 Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 800 itojun@iijlab.net 801 Atsushi Inoue 802 inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 803 Masahiro Ishiyama 804 masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 805 John Loughney 806 john.loughney@nokia.com 807 Rajiv Raghunarayan 808 raraghun@cisco.com 809 Shoichi Sakane 810 shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com 811 Dave Thaler 812 dthaler@windows.microsoft.com 813 Juha Wiljakka 814 juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com 816 The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian 817 Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas 818 Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to 819 Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to 820 Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs. 822 17. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 824 1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 825 of RFC 3775. 826 2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC 827 6106) has been published. 828 3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation. 829 4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added 830 as a MAY. 831 5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 832 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 833 SHOULD be implemented 835 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 836 MUST to implement. 838 18. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 840 1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed 841 by 6man and saag. 843 2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies 844 to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in 845 their requirements 847 3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular. 848 Text made more crisp. 850 4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address 851 discussion to Section 5.8.5. 853 5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t. 854 default configuration setting. 856 19. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 858 1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD) 859 still open. 861 2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options. 863 3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs 864 (RFC5006bis). 866 4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits. 868 5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section. 870 20. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 872 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability 873 statement 875 2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols 877 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 878 added some more RFCs. 880 4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY) 882 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance 883 to recommendation 885 6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs [ 887 21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 889 This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294 891 1. Section 5.1, removed "and DNAME" from the discussion about RFC- 892 3363. 894 2. RFC 2463 references updated to RFC 4443. 896 3. RFC 3513 references updated to RFC 4291. 898 4. RFC 3152 references updated to RFC 3596. 900 5. RFC 2893 references updated to RFC 4213. 902 6. AH [RFC4302] support chanced from MUST to MAY. 904 7. The reference for RFC 3152 has been deleted, as the RFC has been 905 obsoleted, and has been incorporated into RFC 3596. 907 8. The reference for RFC 3879 has been removed as the material from 908 RFC 3879 has been incorporated into RFC 4291. 910 22. References 912 22.1. Normative References 914 [DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6 915 Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0", 916 July 2010, 917 . 919 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 920 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 922 [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery 923 for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. 925 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 926 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 928 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 929 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 931 [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", 932 RFC 2671, August 1999. 934 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 935 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, 936 October 1999. 938 [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", 939 RFC 2711, October 1999. 941 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 942 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 943 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 945 [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. 946 Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) 947 Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, 948 August 2002. 950 [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet 951 Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. 953 [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast 954 Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, 955 September 2003. 957 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 958 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 959 October 2003. 961 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 962 in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 964 [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to 965 Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and 966 Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. 968 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery 969 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 971 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 972 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 974 [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, 975 April 2006. 977 [RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the 978 Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006. 980 [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the 981 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 983 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 984 RFC 4303, December 2005. 986 [RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the 987 Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, 988 December 2005. 990 [RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load 991 Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005. 993 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 994 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 995 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 997 [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet 998 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 999 Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source- 1000 Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006. 1002 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 1003 IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. 1005 [RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 1006 Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and 1007 Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007. 1009 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 1010 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 1011 September 2007. 1013 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 1014 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 1016 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 1017 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 1018 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 1020 [RFC5006] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 1021 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration", 1022 RFC 5006, September 2007. 1024 [RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over 1025 PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. 1027 [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation 1028 of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, 1029 December 2007. 1031 [RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments", 1032 RFC 5722, December 2009. 1034 [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet 1035 Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet 1036 Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010. 1038 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 1039 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. 1041 [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, 1042 "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", 1043 RFC 5996, September 2010. 1045 [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 1046 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", 1047 RFC 6106, November 2010. 1049 [USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile 1050 for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008, 1051 . 1053 22.2. Informative References 1055 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 1056 RFC 793, September 1981. 1058 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 1059 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 1061 [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 1062 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 1063 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 1065 [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet 1066 Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. 1068 [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM 1069 Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. 1071 [RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 1072 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999. 1074 [RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of 1075 IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", 1076 RFC 2590, May 1999. 1078 [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", 1079 RFC 2675, August 1999. 1081 [RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets 1082 over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001. 1084 [RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific 1085 Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. 1087 [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 1088 (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. 1090 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure 1091 Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. 1093 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 1094 RFC 3972, March 2005. 1096 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1097 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 1098 RFC 4033, March 2005. 1100 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1101 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 1102 RFC 4034, March 2005. 1104 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1105 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 1106 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 1108 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 1109 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 1111 [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, 1112 December 2005. 1114 [RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of 1115 IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets 1116 over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006. 1118 [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through 1119 Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, 1120 February 2006. 1122 [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with 1123 IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, 1124 April 2007. 1126 [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, 1127 "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, 1128 April 2007. 1130 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, 1131 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 1132 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. 1134 [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. 1135 Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 1136 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, 1137 February 2008. 1139 [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and 1140 Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. 1142 Authors' Addresses 1144 Ed Jankiewicz 1145 SRI International, Inc. 1146 1161 Broad Street - Suite 212 1147 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 1148 USA 1150 Phone: 732-389-1003 1151 Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com 1153 John Loughney 1154 Nokia 1155 955 Page Mill Road 1156 Palo Alto 94303 1157 USA 1159 Phone: +1 650 283 8068 1160 Email: john.loughney@nokia.com 1161 Thomas Narten 1162 IBM Corporation 1163 3039 Cornwallis Ave. 1164 PO Box 12195 1165 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1166 USA 1168 Phone: +1 919 254 7798 1169 Email: narten@us.ibm.com