idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08.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 (March 11, 2011) is 4794 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC2429' is mentioned on line 879, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 2429 (Obsoleted by RFC 4629) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2529' is defined on line 1221, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1981 (Obsoleted by RFC 8201) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** 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: 14 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 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: September 12, 2011 Nokia 6 T. Narten 7 IBM Corporation 8 March 11, 2011 10 IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis 11 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08.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 September 12, 2011. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2011 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. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - 77 RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 78 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 8 79 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 9 80 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 81 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 82 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 83 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 84 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 85 5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 86 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 10 87 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 10 88 5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 89 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 90 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 11 91 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 11 92 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 11 93 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host 94 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 95 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 96 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 97 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 98 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 99 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 13 100 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 101 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 102 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 103 Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 104 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 105 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 106 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 107 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 108 9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 109 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 14 110 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . . . 14 111 10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 112 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 113 11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 114 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 115 12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 116 12.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 117 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 17 118 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 17 119 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 120 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 18 121 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 122 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 123 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 124 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 125 15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 126 16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 127 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 18 128 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 19 129 17. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 130 18. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 131 19. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 132 20. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 133 21. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 134 22. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 135 23. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 136 23.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 137 23.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 138 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 140 1. Requirements Language 142 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 143 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 144 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 146 2. Introduction 148 The goal of this document is to define the common functionality 149 required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will 150 implement optional or additional features, but this document collects 151 and summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track 152 documents in one place. 154 This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and 155 references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an 156 Applicability Statement and provide guidance as to which IPv6 157 specifications should be implemented in the general case, and which 158 specification may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios. 159 This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs. 161 Although the document points to different specifications, it should 162 be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular 163 requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many 164 specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may 165 not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both 166 client and server behavior in the same specification, while many 167 implementations will be focused on only one of those roles. 169 This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a 170 device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range 171 of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range 172 of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this 173 document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is 174 perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to 175 define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific 176 usage and deployment environments. For example, this document does 177 not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some some deployment 178 scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For 179 example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for 180 specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments [DODv6] and 181 [USGv6]. 183 As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact 184 usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is 185 that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: 187 Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from 188 others [RFC0793]. 190 2.1. Scope of This Document 192 IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be 193 deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, 194 it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure 195 interoperability. 197 This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum 198 requirements specified here. 200 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 202 From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460], 203 we have the following definitions: 205 Description of an IPv6 Node 207 - a device that implements IPv6. 209 Description of an IPv6 router 211 - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to 212 itself. 214 Description of an IPv6 Host 216 - any node that is not a router. 218 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 220 ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode 221 AH Authentication Header 222 DAD Duplicate Address Detection 223 ESP Encapsulating Security Payload 224 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol 225 IKE Internet Key Exchange 226 MIB Management Information Base 227 MLD Multicast Listener Discovery 228 MTU Maximum Transfer Unit 229 NA Neighbor Advertisement 230 NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access 231 ND Neighbor Discovery 232 NS Neighbor Solicitation 233 NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection 234 PPP Point-to-Point Protocol 235 PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit 236 SVC Switched Virtual Circuit 238 4. Sub-IP Layer 240 An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer 241 specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation 242 should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the 243 hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant 244 IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on 245 others. 247 As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new 248 specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the 249 link-layers for which an IPv6 specification has been developed. It 250 is provided for information purposes only, and may not be complete. 252 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464] 253 - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] 254 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks 255 Specification [RFC2590] 256 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146] 257 - Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) 258 Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338] 259 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] 260 - Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 261 802.16 Networks [RFC5121] 262 - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] 264 In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible 265 to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: 267 - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address 268 Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] 269 - Section 3 of "Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms" [RFC4213] 271 5. IP Layer 272 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 274 The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This 275 specification MUST be supported. 277 Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options 278 extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460. 280 The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. 282 Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment 283 headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of 284 sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY 285 be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in 286 [RFC5722]. 288 RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these 289 headers. 291 A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the 292 following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0), 293 Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating 294 Security Payload [RFC2460]. 296 An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is 297 Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to 298 security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized 299 routing type. 301 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 303 Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861] and was updated by 304 [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC4861 states: 306 Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP 307 over a particular link type) this document applies to all link 308 types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of 309 its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA 310 links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those 311 services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering 312 the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services 313 described in this document that are not directly dependent on 314 multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor 315 Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as 316 specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on 317 NBMA links is an area for further study. 319 Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows: 321 Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an 322 attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality. 324 Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes 325 that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link. 326 Hosts MUST support Prefix discovery. 328 Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for 329 all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. NUD is not required 330 for paths between routers. However, all nodes MUST respond to 331 unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages. 333 Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the 334 receiving of Router Advertisements. The ability to understand 335 individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting 336 the functionality making use of the particular option. 338 All nodes MUST support the Sending and Receiving of Neighbor 339 Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and 340 NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). 342 Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality. 343 Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily 344 for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting). Redirects 345 are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks 346 dominated by routers, redirects are typically disabled. The sending 347 of redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They 348 MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on 349 edge networks. 351 "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional 352 recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers. 353 RFC 4311 SHOULD be supported. 355 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 357 "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC5942] 358 provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks 359 each advertising its own default route(s). Nodes (routers or hosts) 360 MAY wish to implement this functionality. 362 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 364 SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) 365 [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor 366 Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4 367 counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain 368 classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some 369 implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment 370 experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF 371 working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on 372 additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for 373 deployment. 375 At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide 376 SEND functionality. 378 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 380 Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router 381 Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends 382 the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this 383 writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2 384 remain available for future assignment. No flags have been defined 385 that make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is 386 no requirement to implement the option today. However, 387 implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a 388 higher level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a 389 user-level process using a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to 390 handle the option in anticipation of a future usage. 392 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 394 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 396 "Path MTU Discovery" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported. From [RFC2460]: 398 It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU 399 Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of 400 path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 401 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to 402 sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit 403 implementation of Path MTU Discovery. 405 The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet 406 fragmentation and reassembly. 408 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 410 IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. 412 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 414 ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- 415 Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported. 417 5.9. Addressing 419 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 421 The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. 423 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 425 Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as 426 defined in [RFC4862]. Static address may be supported as well. 428 Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses 429 as described in RFC 4862 [RFC4862]. 431 From 4862: 433 The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies 434 only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses 435 information advertised by routers, routers will need to be 436 configured by some other means. However, it is expected that 437 routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism 438 described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to 439 successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure 440 described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning 441 them to an interface. 443 All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from 444 Section 5.4 of RFC 4862: 446 Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast 447 addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of 448 whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration, 449 DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions 450 noted therein]. 452 "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429] 453 specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating 454 addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. RFC 455 4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce 456 the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly 457 move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize 458 transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 is not 459 considered to be necessary at this time. 461 5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 463 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] 464 addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is 465 concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem 466 arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes 467 its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless 468 Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion 469 of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. Thus, 470 although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its 471 point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those 472 addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track 473 the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its 474 pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise 475 privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862]. 477 In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, 478 such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides 479 limited or no benefit. 481 Implementors of "RFC4941 should be aware that certain addresses are 482 reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses. 483 Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more 484 details. 486 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 488 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 489 [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. IPv6 nodes will need to deal 490 with multiple addresses configured simultaneously. 492 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 494 DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a 495 network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router 496 Advertisements, DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration 497 of stateless address autoconfiguration is more widely implemented in 498 hosts than address configuration through DHCP. However, some 499 environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the 500 configuration of addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware 501 of what operating environment their devices will be deployed. Hosts 502 MAY implement address configuration via DHCP. 504 In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address 505 assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other 506 configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of 507 [RFC4862]. 509 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 511 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 512 [RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive 513 and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used 514 on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and 515 requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. 517 Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement MLDv2 518 [RFC3810]. Specifically, if the node has applications that need 519 support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], the node MUST 520 support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], [RFC4604] and [RFC4607]. If 521 the node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast 522 (i.e, they do not use source-specific multicast), implementing MLDv1 523 [RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, nodes are strongly encouraged 524 to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a single 525 MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on the link 526 operate in version 1 compatibility mode. 528 When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the 529 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be 530 followed. 532 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration 534 In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating 535 configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements and DHCP. 536 Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed 537 essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are 538 configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the 539 Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, 540 DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general 541 parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That 542 said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option 543 should be configured via DHCP vs. an RA option has not always been 544 easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define 545 only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than 546 defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same 547 information. 549 One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same 550 information is that if a host chooses one mechanism, but the network 551 operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers. 552 For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant 553 influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what 554 configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to 555 ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected 556 hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices 557 may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize 558 interoperability in such environments hosts may need to implement 559 multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. 561 Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was 562 performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined, 563 but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router 564 Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published 565 as a Standards Track Document. Consequently, DNS configuration 566 information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs. 567 Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be 568 implemented. 570 7. DNS and DHCP 572 7.1. DNS 574 DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596]. 575 Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need 576 to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. 577 However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure 578 capability that applications rely on and most nodes will need to 579 provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034] 580 functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for: 582 - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; 583 - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; 584 - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 585 octets. 587 Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions 588 [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035]. 590 Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 591 Resource Records [RFC3363]. 593 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 595 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information 597 IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration 598 information (See Section 5.8.5) and to obtain additional (non- 599 address) configuration. If a host implementation supports 600 applications or other protocols that require configuration that is 601 only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For 602 specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present, 603 DHCP may not be necessary. 605 An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to 606 obtain other configuration information. 608 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 610 Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 611 are expected to determine their default router information and on- 612 link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. 614 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106 616 Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that 617 are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS 618 configuration was not included as an RA option and DHCP was the 619 recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time, 620 the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now 621 generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without 622 having access to a working DNS resolver. RFC 5006 was published as 623 an experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was 624 placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106]. 626 Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106]. 628 8. IPv4 Support and Transition 630 IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. 632 8.1. Transition Mechanisms 634 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 635 4213 637 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] 638 MUST be supported. 640 9. Application Support 642 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 644 Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in 645 text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text 646 Representation" [RFC5952]. 648 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) 650 There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not 651 mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly 652 relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementors, however, 653 would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing 654 exising APIs for the type of functionality they provide to 655 applications. 657 "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6 658 functionality used by typical applications. Implementors should note 659 that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by POSIX 660 [POSIX]. 662 "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6" 663 [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by 664 diagnostic and other more specialized applications. 666 "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides 667 facilities that allow an application to override the default Source 668 Address Selection rules of [RFC2434]. 670 "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678] 671 provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group 672 memberships. 674 "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides 675 application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 features. 676 [RFC3775] 678 10. Mobility 680 Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776] 681 [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the 682 Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All 683 communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as 684 expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP 685 includes requirements for the following types of nodes: 687 - mobile nodes 688 - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization 689 - home agents 690 - all IPv6 routers 692 At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation 693 and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed 694 an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. 695 Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- 696 mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555]. 698 More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before 699 any one can be recommended for broad implementation in all hosts and 700 routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and associated 701 standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this time. 703 11. Security 705 This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. 707 Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational 708 procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate 709 management approaches, etc. are all components that impact the level 710 of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly, 711 deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can 712 significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular 713 security approach. 715 IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it 716 possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of) 717 communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes. 718 IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual 719 TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc. 721 Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such 722 usage has limited applicability and is not recommended. 724 A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today 725 (e.g., IPsec, TLS, SSH, etc.) No one approach has emerged as an 726 ideal technology for all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is 727 not viewed as the ideal security technology in all cases and is 728 unlikely to displace the others. 730 Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the 731 key management approach of IKE. This document updates that 732 recommendation by making support of the IP Security Architecture [RFC 733 4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 734 requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both 735 manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated 736 key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996]. 738 This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types 739 and environments where other approaches to security than IPsec can be 740 justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a 741 very limited number or type of applications and an application- 742 specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management 743 or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices my run on 744 extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full IP 745 Security Architecture is not justified. 747 11.1. Requirements 749 "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be 750 supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 751 requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both 752 manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated 753 key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required in 754 [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST 755 implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302]. 757 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms 759 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IP 760 Security Architecture are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm 761 Implementation Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes 762 implementing the IP Security Architecture MUST conform to the 763 requirements in [RFC4835]. Preferred cryptographic algorithms often 764 change more frequently than security protocols. Therefore 765 implementations MUST allow for migration to new algorithms, as 766 RFC4835 is replaced or updated in the future. 768 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are 769 defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key 770 Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)' [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 771 MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future 772 updates or replacements to [RFC4307]. 774 12. Router-Specific Functionality 776 This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that 777 act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- 778 specific requirements. 780 12.1. General 782 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 784 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop 785 Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP 786 [RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be 787 implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are 788 implemented. See Section 5.9. 790 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 792 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST 793 be supported. 795 Section 7 of RFC 3775 includes some mobility-specific extensions to 796 Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5, 797 even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality. 799 13. Network Management 801 Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 802 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only 803 possible way of controlling these nodes. 805 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 807 The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that 808 support an SNMP agent. 810 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 812 IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that 813 support an SNMP agent. 815 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 817 IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP 818 agent. 820 14. Security Considerations 822 This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, 823 beyond the security considerations associated with the individual 824 protocols. 826 Security is also discussed in Section 10 above. 828 15. IANA Considerations 830 This document has no requests for IANA. 832 16. Authors and Acknowledgments 834 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 836 To be filled out. 838 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 840 The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the 841 IPv6 Node Requirements design team: 843 Jari Arkko 844 jari.arkko@ericsson.com 845 Marc Blanchet 846 marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 847 Samita Chakrabarti 848 samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com 849 Alain Durand 850 alain.durand@sun.com 851 Gerard Gastaud 852 gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr 853 Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 854 itojun@iijlab.net 855 Atsushi Inoue 856 inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 857 Masahiro Ishiyama 858 masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 859 John Loughney 860 john.loughney@nokia.com 861 Rajiv Raghunarayan 862 raraghun@cisco.com 863 Shoichi Sakane 864 shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com 865 Dave Thaler 866 dthaler@windows.microsoft.com 867 Juha Wiljakka 868 juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com 870 The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian 871 Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas 872 Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to 873 Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to 874 Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs. 876 17. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 878 1. Dropped reference to "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains 879 without Explicit Tunnels" [RFC2429] in favor of a reference to 880 tunneling via Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms (RFC4313). 881 2. Added reference to "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific 882 Routes" [RFC5942] as a MAY. 884 3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 885 for IPv6" (RFC4429). 886 4. Added reference to RFC4941 ""Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" 887 5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and node are 888 required. 889 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 890 SHOULD be implemented 891 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 892 MUST to implement. 893 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 894 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 896 18. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 898 1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 899 of RFC 3775. 900 2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC 901 6106) has been published. 902 3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation. 903 4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added 904 as a MAY. 905 5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 906 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 907 SHOULD be implemented 908 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 909 MUST to implement. 910 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 911 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 913 19. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 915 1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed 916 by 6man and saag. 918 2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies 919 to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in 920 their requirements 922 3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular. 923 Text made more crisp. 925 4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address 926 discussion to Section 5.8.5. 928 5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t. 929 default configuration setting. 931 20. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 933 1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD) 934 still open. 936 2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options. 938 3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs 939 (RFC5006bis). 941 4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits. 943 5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section. 945 21. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 947 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability 948 statement 950 2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols 952 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 953 added some more RFCs. 955 4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY) 957 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance 958 to recommendation 960 6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs [ 962 22. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 964 There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant 965 additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the 966 changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive 967 list of all changes. 969 This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294 971 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability 972 statement and that this document is aimed at general nodes. 974 2. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding 975 references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAY. 977 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 978 added some more RFCs. 980 4. Added Section on SEND (made it a MAY) 982 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance 983 to recommendation. 985 6. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 Section, downgrading overall 986 recommendation to a SHOULD. 988 7. Added background section on DHCP vs RA options, added SHOULD 989 recommendation sfor DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106), cleaned up 990 DHCP recommendations 992 8. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 993 of RFC 3775. 995 9. Clarified recommendations on MLD. 997 10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 999 11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 1000 SHOULD be implemented 1002 12. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 1003 MUST to implement. 1005 13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 1006 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 1008 14. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363. 1010 15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents, 1011 including 4443, 4291, 3596, 4213. 1013 16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There 1014 is no consensus at present on how to process these flags and 1015 discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent update 1016 of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (RFC 4862). 1018 Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents. 1020 Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 1021 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 1023 Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a MUST to 1024 implement. 1026 23. References 1028 23.1. Normative References 1030 [DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6 1031 Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0", 1032 July 2010, 1033 . 1035 [POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information 1036 Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), 1037 ISO/IEC 9945:2002", December 2001, 1038 . 1040 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 1041 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 1043 [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery 1044 for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. 1046 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1047 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1049 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1050 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 1051 October 1998. 1053 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1054 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 1056 [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", 1057 RFC 2671, August 1999. 1059 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 1060 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, 1061 October 1999. 1063 [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", 1064 RFC 2711, October 1999. 1066 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 1067 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 1068 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 1070 [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. 1071 Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) 1072 Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, 1073 August 2002. 1075 [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet 1076 Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. 1078 [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. 1079 Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", 1080 RFC 3493, February 2003. 1082 [RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei, 1083 "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for 1084 IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003. 1086 [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast 1087 Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, 1088 September 2003. 1090 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 1091 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 1092 October 2003. 1094 [RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface 1095 Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678, 1096 January 2004. 1098 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 1099 in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 1101 [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to 1102 Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and 1103 Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. 1105 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery 1106 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 1108 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 1109 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 1111 [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, 1112 April 2006. 1114 [RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the 1115 Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006. 1117 [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the 1118 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 1120 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 1121 RFC 4303, December 2005. 1123 [RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the 1124 Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, 1125 December 2005. 1127 [RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load 1128 Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005. 1130 [RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 1131 for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006. 1133 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 1134 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 1135 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 1137 [RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API 1138 for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, July 2006. 1140 [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet 1141 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 1142 Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source- 1143 Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006. 1145 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 1146 IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. 1148 [RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 1149 Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and 1150 Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007. 1152 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 1153 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 1154 September 2007. 1156 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 1157 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 1159 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 1160 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 1161 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 1163 [RFC5006] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 1164 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration", 1165 RFC 5006, September 2007. 1167 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 1168 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, 1169 September 2007. 1171 [RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over 1172 PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. 1174 [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation 1175 of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, 1176 December 2007. 1178 [RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers", 1179 RFC 5453, February 2009. 1181 [RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments", 1182 RFC 5722, December 2009. 1184 [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet 1185 Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet 1186 Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010. 1188 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 1189 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. 1191 [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, 1192 "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", 1193 RFC 5996, September 2010. 1195 [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 1196 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", 1197 RFC 6106, November 2010. 1199 [USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile 1200 for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008, 1201 . 1203 23.2. Informative References 1205 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 1206 RFC 793, September 1981. 1208 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 1209 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 1211 [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 1212 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 1213 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 1215 [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet 1216 Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. 1218 [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM 1219 Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. 1221 [RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 1222 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999. 1224 [RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of 1225 IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", 1226 RFC 2590, May 1999. 1228 [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", 1229 RFC 2675, August 1999. 1231 [RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets 1232 over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001. 1234 [RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific 1235 Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. 1237 [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 1238 (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. 1240 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure 1241 Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. 1243 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 1244 RFC 3972, March 2005. 1246 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1247 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 1248 RFC 4033, March 2005. 1250 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1251 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 1252 RFC 4034, March 2005. 1254 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1255 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 1256 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 1258 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 1259 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 1261 [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, 1262 December 2005. 1264 [RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of 1265 IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets 1266 over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006. 1268 [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through 1269 Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, 1270 February 2006. 1272 [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with 1273 IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, 1274 April 2007. 1276 [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, 1277 "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, 1278 April 2007. 1280 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, 1281 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 1282 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. 1284 [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. 1285 Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 1286 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, 1287 February 2008. 1289 [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and 1290 Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. 1292 Authors' Addresses 1294 Ed Jankiewicz 1295 SRI International, Inc. 1296 1161 Broad Street - Suite 212 1297 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 1298 USA 1300 Phone: 443-502-5815 1301 Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com 1303 John Loughney 1304 Nokia 1305 955 Page Mill Road 1306 Palo Alto 94303 1307 USA 1309 Phone: +1 650 283 8068 1310 Email: john.loughney@nokia.com 1311 Thomas Narten 1312 IBM Corporation 1313 3039 Cornwallis Ave. 1314 PO Box 12195 1315 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1316 USA 1318 Phone: +1 919 254 7798 1319 Email: narten@us.ibm.com