idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.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 (April 26, 2011) is 4750 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 3736 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** 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 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 2429 (Obsoleted by RFC 4629) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3775 (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5006 (Obsoleted by RFC 6106) Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 6 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 Obsoletes: 4294 (if approved) J. Loughney 5 Intended status: Informational Nokia 6 Expires: October 28, 2011 T. Narten 7 IBM Corporation 8 April 26, 2011 10 IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis 11 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.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 This document obsoletes RFC4294. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2011. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 56 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 57 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 58 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 59 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 60 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 61 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 62 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 63 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 64 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 65 than English. 67 Table of Contents 69 1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 8 78 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - 79 RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 9 81 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 10 82 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 83 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 84 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 85 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 86 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 87 5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 88 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 11 89 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 11 90 5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 91 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 92 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 12 93 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 12 94 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 13 95 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host 96 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 97 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 98 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 99 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 100 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 101 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 15 102 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 103 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 104 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 105 Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 106 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 107 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 108 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 109 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 110 9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 111 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 16 112 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . . . 16 113 10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 114 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 115 11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 116 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 117 12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 118 12.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 119 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 19 120 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 19 121 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 122 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 19 123 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 124 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 125 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 126 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 127 15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 128 16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 129 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 20 130 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 20 131 17. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 132 18. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 133 19. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 134 20. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 135 21. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 136 22. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 137 23. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 138 24. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 139 24.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 140 24.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 141 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 143 1. Requirements Language 145 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 146 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 147 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 149 2. Introduction 151 This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6 152 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or 153 additional features, but this document collects and summarizes 154 requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one 155 place. 157 This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and 158 references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an 159 Applicability Statement and provide guidance as to which IPv6 160 specifications should be implemented in the general case, and which 161 specification may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios. 162 This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs. 164 Although the document points to different specifications, it should 165 be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular 166 requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many 167 specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may 168 not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both 169 client and server behavior in the same specification, while many 170 implementations will be focused on only one of those roles. 172 This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a 173 device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range 174 of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range 175 of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this 176 document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is 177 perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to 178 define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific 179 usage and deployment environments. For example, this document does 180 not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment 181 scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For 182 example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for 183 specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments [DODv6] and 184 [USGv6]. 186 As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact 187 usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is 188 that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: 190 Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from 191 others [RFC0793]. 193 2.1. Scope of This Document 195 IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be 196 deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, 197 it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure 198 interoperability. 200 This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum 201 requirements specified here. 203 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 205 From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460], 206 we have the following definitions: 208 Description of an IPv6 Node 210 - a device that implements IPv6. 212 Description of an IPv6 router 214 - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to 215 itself. 217 Description of an IPv6 Host 219 - any node that is not a router. 221 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 223 ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode 224 AH Authentication Header 225 DAD Duplicate Address Detection 226 ESP Encapsulating Security Payload 227 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol 228 IKE Internet Key Exchange 229 MIB Management Information Base 230 MLD Multicast Listener Discovery 231 MTU Maximum Transfer Unit 232 NA Neighbor Advertisement 233 NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access 234 ND Neighbor Discovery 235 NS Neighbor Solicitation 236 NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection 237 PPP Point-to-Point Protocol 238 PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit 239 SVC Switched Virtual Circuit 241 4. Sub-IP Layer 243 An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer 244 specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation 245 should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the 246 hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant 247 IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on 248 others. 250 As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new 251 specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the 252 link-layers for which an IPv6 specification has been developed. It 253 is provided for information purposes only, and may not be complete. 255 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464] 256 - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] 257 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks 258 Specification [RFC2590] 259 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146] 260 - Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) 261 Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338] 262 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] 263 - Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 264 802.16 Networks [RFC5121] 265 - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] 267 In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible 268 to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: 270 - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address 271 Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] 272 - Section 3 of "Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms" [RFC4213] 274 5. IP Layer 275 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 277 The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This 278 specification MUST be supported. 280 Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options 281 extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460. 283 The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. 285 Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment 286 headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of 287 sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY 288 be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in 289 [RFC5722]. 291 RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these 292 headers. 294 A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the 295 following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0), 296 Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating 297 Security Payload [RFC2460]. 299 An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is 300 Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to 301 security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized 302 routing type. 304 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 306 Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861] and was updated by 307 [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC4861 states: 309 Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP 310 over a particular link type) this document applies to all link 311 types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of 312 its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA 313 links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those 314 services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering 315 the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services 316 described in this document that are not directly dependent on 317 multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor 318 Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as 319 specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on 320 NBMA links is an area for further study. 322 Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows: 324 Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an 325 attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality. 327 Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes 328 that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link. 329 Hosts MUST support Prefix discovery. 331 Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for 332 all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. NUD is not required 333 for paths between routers. However, all nodes MUST respond to 334 unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages. 336 Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the 337 receiving of Router Advertisements. The ability to understand 338 individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting 339 the functionality making use of the particular option. 341 All nodes MUST support the Sending and Receiving of Neighbor 342 Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and 343 NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). 345 Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality. 346 Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily 347 for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting). Redirects 348 are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks 349 dominated by routers, redirects are typically disabled. The sending 350 of redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They 351 MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on 352 edge networks. 354 "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional 355 recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers. 356 RFC 4311 SHOULD be supported. 358 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 360 "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191] 361 provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks 362 each advertising its own default route(s). Nodes (routers or hosts) 363 MAY wish to implement this functionality. 365 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 367 SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) 368 [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor 369 Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4 370 counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain 371 classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some 372 implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment 373 experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF 374 working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on 375 additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for 376 deployment. 378 At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide 379 SEND functionality. 381 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 383 Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router 384 Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends 385 the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this 386 writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2 387 remain available for future assignment. No flags have been defined 388 that make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is 389 no requirement to implement the option today. However, 390 implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a 391 higher level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a 392 user-level process using a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to 393 handle the option in anticipation of a future usage. 395 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 397 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 399 "Path MTU Discovery" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported. From [RFC2460]: 401 It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU 402 Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of 403 path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 404 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to 405 sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit 406 implementation of Path MTU Discovery. 408 The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet 409 fragmentation and reassembly. 411 One operational issue with Path MTU discovery occurs when firewalls 412 block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU discovery relies on 413 such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully 414 sent. Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery [RFC4821] avoids having 415 a dependency on Packet Too Big messages. 417 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 419 IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. 421 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 423 ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- 424 Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported. 426 5.9. Addressing 428 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 430 The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. 432 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 434 Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as 435 defined in [RFC4862]. Static address may be supported as well. 437 Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses 438 as described in RFC 4862 [RFC4862]. 440 From 4862: 442 The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies 443 only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses 444 information advertised by routers, routers will need to be 445 configured by some other means. However, it is expected that 446 routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism 447 described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to 448 successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure 449 described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning 450 them to an interface. 452 All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from 453 Section 5.4 of RFC 4862: 455 Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast 456 addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of 457 whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration, 458 DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions 459 noted therein]. 461 "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429] 462 specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating 463 addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. RFC 464 4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce 465 the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly 466 move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize 467 transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 is not 468 considered to be necessary at this time. 470 5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 472 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] 473 addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is 474 concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem 475 arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes 476 its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless 477 Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion 478 of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. Thus, 479 although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its 480 point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those 481 addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track 482 the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its 483 pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise 484 privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862]. 486 In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, 487 such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides 488 limited or no benefit. 490 Implementors of "RFC4941 should be aware that certain addresses are 491 reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses. 492 Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more 493 details. 495 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 497 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 498 [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. IPv6 nodes will need to deal 499 with multiple addresses configured simultaneously. 501 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 503 DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a 504 network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router 505 Advertisements, DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration 506 of stateless address autoconfiguration is more widely implemented in 507 hosts than address configuration through DHCP. However, some 508 environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the 509 configuration of addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware 510 of what operating environment their devices will be deployed. Hosts 511 MAY implement address configuration via DHCP. 513 In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address 514 assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other 515 configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of 516 [RFC4862]. 518 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 520 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 521 [RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive 522 and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used 523 on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and 524 requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. 526 MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting 527 Source-Specific Multicast. The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810] 528 supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of 529 "filter modes". Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a 530 multicast group along with a list of senders for that group it wishes 531 to receive traffic from. Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node indicates a 532 multicast group along with a list of senders it wishes to exclude 533 receiving traffic from. In practice, operations to block source(s) 534 using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used, but add considerable 535 implementation complexity to MLDv2. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] is a 536 simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification that omits 537 EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s). 539 Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 540 [RFC5790]. Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source- 541 Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE 542 functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], 543 [RFC4604] and [RFC4607]. Nodes supporting applications that expect 544 to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as 545 Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support MLDv2 as 546 defined in [RFC5790]. 548 If a node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast 549 (i.e, they do not use source-specific multicast), implementing MLDv1 550 [RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, however, nodes are strongly 551 encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, 552 as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that 553 all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode. 555 When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the 556 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be 557 followed. 559 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration 561 In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating 562 configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements and DHCP. 563 Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed 564 essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are 565 configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the 566 Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, 567 DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general 568 parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That 569 said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option 570 should be configured via DHCP vs. an RA option has not always been 571 easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define 572 only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than 573 defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same 574 information. 576 One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same 577 information is that if a host chooses one mechanism, but the network 578 operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers. 579 For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant 580 influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what 581 configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to 582 ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected 583 hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices 584 may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize 585 interoperability in such environments hosts may need to implement 586 multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. 588 Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was 589 performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined, 590 but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router 591 Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published 592 as a Standards Track Document. Consequently, DNS configuration 593 information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs. 594 Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be 595 implemented. 597 7. DNS and DHCP 599 7.1. DNS 601 DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596]. 602 Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need 603 to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. 604 However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure 605 capability that applications rely on and most nodes will need to 606 provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034] 607 functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for: 609 - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; 610 - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; 611 - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 612 octets. 614 Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions 615 [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035]. 617 Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 618 Resource Records [RFC3363]. 620 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 622 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information 624 IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration 625 information (See Section 5.8.5) and to obtain additional (non- 626 address) configuration. If a host implementation supports 627 applications or other protocols that require configuration that is 628 only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For 629 specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present, 630 DHCP may not be necessary. 632 An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to 633 obtain other configuration information. 635 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 637 Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 638 are expected to determine their default router information and on- 639 link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. 641 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106 643 Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that 644 are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS 645 configuration was not included as an RA option and DHCP was the 646 recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time, 647 the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now 648 generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without 649 having access to a working DNS resolver. RFC 5006 was published as 650 an experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was 651 placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106]. 653 Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106]. 655 8. IPv4 Support and Transition 657 IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. 659 8.1. Transition Mechanisms 661 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 662 4213 664 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] 665 MUST be supported. 667 9. Application Support 669 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 671 Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in 672 text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text 673 Representation" [RFC5952]. 675 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) 677 There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not 678 mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly 679 relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementors, however, 680 would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing 681 existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to 682 applications. 684 "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6 685 functionality used by typical applications. Implementors should note 686 that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by POSIX 687 [POSIX]. 689 "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6" 690 [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by 691 diagnostic and other more specialized applications. 693 "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides 694 facilities that allow an application to override the default Source 695 Address Selection rules of [RFC3484]. 697 "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678] 698 provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group 699 memberships. 701 "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides 702 application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 features. 703 [RFC3775] 705 10. Mobility 707 Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776] 708 [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the 709 Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All 710 communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as 711 expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP 712 includes requirements for the following types of nodes: 714 - mobile nodes 715 - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization 716 - home agents 717 - all IPv6 routers 719 At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation 720 and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed 721 an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. 722 Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- 723 mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555]. 725 More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before 726 any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in 727 all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and 728 associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this 729 time. 731 11. Security 733 This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. 735 Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational 736 procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate 737 management approaches, etc. are all components that impact the level 738 of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly, 739 deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can 740 significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular 741 security approach. 743 IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it 744 possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of) 745 communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes. 746 IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual 747 TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc. 749 Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such 750 usage has limited applicability and is not recommended. 752 A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today 753 (e.g., IPsec, TLS, SSH, etc.) No one approach has emerged as an 754 ideal technology for all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is 755 not viewed as the ideal security technology in all cases and is 756 unlikely to displace the others. 758 Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the 759 key management approach of IKE. This document updates that 760 recommendation by making support of the IP Security Architecture [RFC 761 4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 762 requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both 763 manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated 764 key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996]. 766 This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types 767 and environments where other approaches to security than IPsec can be 768 justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a 769 very limited number or type of applications and an application- 770 specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management 771 or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices my run on 772 extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full IP 773 Security Architecture is not justified. 775 11.1. Requirements 777 "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be 778 supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 779 requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both 780 manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated 781 key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required in 782 [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST 783 implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302]. 785 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms 787 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IP 788 Security Architecture are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm 789 Implementation Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes 790 implementing the IP Security Architecture MUST conform to the 791 requirements in [RFC4835]. Preferred cryptographic algorithms often 792 change more frequently than security protocols. Therefore 793 implementations MUST allow for migration to new algorithms, as 794 RFC4835 is replaced or updated in the future. 796 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are 797 defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key 798 Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)' [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 799 MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future 800 updates or replacements to [RFC4307]. 802 12. Router-Specific Functionality 804 This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that 805 act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- 806 specific requirements. 808 12.1. General 810 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 812 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop 813 Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP 814 [RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be 815 implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are 816 implemented. See Section 5.9. 818 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 820 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST 821 be supported. 823 Section 7 of RFC 3775 includes some mobility-specific extensions to 824 Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5, 825 even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality. 827 13. Network Management 829 Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 830 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only 831 possible way of controlling these nodes. 833 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 835 The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that 836 support an SNMP agent. 838 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 840 IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that 841 support an SNMP agent. 843 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 845 IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP 846 agent. 848 14. Security Considerations 850 This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, 851 beyond the security considerations associated with the individual 852 protocols. 854 Security is also discussed in Section 10 above. 856 15. IANA Considerations 858 This document has no requests for IANA. 860 16. Authors and Acknowledgments 862 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 864 For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors 865 would like to thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, 866 Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron 867 Sheffer and Dave Thaler for their comments. 869 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 871 The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the 872 IPv6 Node Requirements design team: 874 Jari Arkko 875 jari.arkko@ericsson.com 876 Marc Blanchet 877 marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 878 Samita Chakrabarti 879 samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com 880 Alain Durand 881 alain.durand@sun.com 882 Gerard Gastaud 883 gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr 884 Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 885 itojun@iijlab.net 886 Atsushi Inoue 887 inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 888 Masahiro Ishiyama 889 masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 890 John Loughney 891 john.loughney@nokia.com 892 Rajiv Raghunarayan 893 raraghun@cisco.com 894 Shoichi Sakane 895 shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com 896 Dave Thaler 897 dthaler@windows.microsoft.com 898 Juha Wiljakka 899 juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com 901 The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian 902 Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas 903 Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to 904 Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to 905 Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs. 907 17. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 909 1. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD 910 [RFC5790] 912 18. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 914 1. Dropped reference to "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains 915 without Explicit Tunnels" [RFC2429] in favor of a reference to 916 tunneling via Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms (RFC4313). 917 2. Added reference to "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific 918 Routes" [RFC4191] as a MAY. 919 3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 920 for IPv6" (RFC4429). 921 4. Added reference to RFC4941 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" 922 5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and none are 923 required. 924 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 925 SHOULD be implemented 926 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 927 MUST to implement. 929 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 930 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 932 19. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 934 1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 935 of RFC 3775. 936 2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC 937 6106) has been published. 938 3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation. 939 4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added 940 as a MAY. 941 5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 942 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 943 SHOULD be implemented 944 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 945 MUST to implement. 946 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 947 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 949 20. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 951 1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed 952 by 6man and saag. 953 2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies 954 to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in 955 their requirements 956 3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular. 957 Text made more crisp. 958 4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address 959 discussion to Section 5.8.5. 960 5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t. 961 default configuration setting. 963 21. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 965 1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD) 966 still open. 967 2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options. 968 3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs 969 (RFC5006bis). 970 4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits. 971 5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section. 973 22. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 975 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability 976 statement 977 2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols 978 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 979 added some more RFCs. 980 4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY) 981 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance 982 to recommendation 983 6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs. 985 23. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 987 1. There have been many editorial clarifications as well as 988 significant additions and updates. While this section 989 highlights some of the changes, readers should not rely on this 990 section for a comprehensive list of all changes. 991 2. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an 992 applicability statement and that this document is aimed at 993 general nodes. 994 3. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding 995 references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAY. 996 4. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 997 added some more RFCs. 998 5. Added Section on SEND (it is a MAY) 999 6. Revised Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more 1000 nuance to recommendation. 1001 7. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 Section, downgrading overall 1002 recommendation to a SHOULD. 1003 8. Added background section on DHCP vs RA options, added SHOULD 1004 recommendation sfor DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106), 1005 cleaned up DHCP recommendations 1006 9. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 1007 of RFC 3775. 1008 10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 1009 11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 1010 SHOULD be implemented 1011 12. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 1012 MUST to implement. 1013 13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 1014 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 1015 14. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363. 1016 15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents, 1017 including 4443, 4291, 3596, 4213. 1019 16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There 1020 is no consensus at present on how to process these flags and 1021 discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent 1022 update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (RFC 4862). 1023 17. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents. 1024 18. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 1025 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 1026 19. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 1027 MUST to implement. 1028 20. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD 1029 [RFC5790] 1031 24. References 1033 24.1. Normative References 1035 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 1036 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 1038 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 1039 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 1041 [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery 1042 for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. 1044 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1045 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1047 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1048 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 1050 [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", 1051 RFC 2671, August 1999. 1053 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 1054 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, 1055 October 1999. 1057 [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", 1058 RFC 2711, October 1999. 1060 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 1061 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 1062 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 1064 [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet 1065 Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. 1067 [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast 1068 Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, 1069 September 2003. 1071 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 1072 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 1073 October 2003. 1075 [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 1076 (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. 1078 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery 1079 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 1081 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1082 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 1083 RFC 4033, March 2005. 1085 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1086 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 1087 RFC 4034, March 2005. 1089 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1090 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 1091 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 1093 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 1094 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 1096 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 1097 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 1099 [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, 1100 April 2006. 1102 [RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the 1103 Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006. 1105 [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the 1106 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 1108 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 1109 RFC 4303, December 2005. 1111 [RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the 1112 Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, 1113 December 2005. 1115 [RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load 1116 Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005. 1118 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 1119 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 1120 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 1122 [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet 1123 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 1124 Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source- 1125 Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006. 1127 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 1128 IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. 1130 [RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 1131 Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and 1132 Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007. 1134 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 1135 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 1136 September 2007. 1138 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 1139 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 1141 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 1142 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 1143 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 1145 [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation 1146 of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, 1147 December 2007. 1149 [RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers", 1150 RFC 5453, February 2009. 1152 [RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments", 1153 RFC 5722, December 2009. 1155 [RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet 1156 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 1157 Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790, 1158 February 2010. 1160 [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet 1161 Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet 1162 Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010. 1164 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 1165 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. 1167 [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, 1168 "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", 1169 RFC 5996, September 2010. 1171 [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 1172 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", 1173 RFC 6106, November 2010. 1175 24.2. Informative References 1177 [DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6 1178 Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0", 1179 July 2010, 1180 . 1182 [POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information 1183 Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), 1184 ISO/IEC 9945:2002", December 2001, 1185 . 1187 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 1188 RFC 793, September 1981. 1190 [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 1191 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 1192 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 1194 [RFC2429] Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco, 1195 C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and C. 1196 Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T 1197 Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)", RFC 2429, October 1998. 1199 [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet 1200 Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. 1202 [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM 1203 Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. 1205 [RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of 1206 IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", 1207 RFC 2590, May 1999. 1209 [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", 1210 RFC 2675, August 1999. 1212 [RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets 1213 over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001. 1215 [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. 1216 Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) 1217 Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, 1218 August 2002. 1220 [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. 1221 Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", 1222 RFC 3493, February 2003. 1224 [RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei, 1225 "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for 1226 IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003. 1228 [RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface 1229 Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678, 1230 January 2004. 1232 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 1233 in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 1235 [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to 1236 Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and 1237 Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. 1239 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure 1240 Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. 1242 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 1243 RFC 3972, March 2005. 1245 [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and 1246 More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005. 1248 [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, 1249 December 2005. 1251 [RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of 1252 IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets 1253 over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006. 1255 [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through 1256 Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, 1257 February 2006. 1259 [RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 1260 for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006. 1262 [RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API 1263 for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, July 2006. 1265 [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU 1266 Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007. 1268 [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with 1269 IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, 1270 April 2007. 1272 [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, 1273 "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, 1274 April 2007. 1276 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, 1277 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 1278 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. 1280 [RFC5006] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 1281 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration", 1282 RFC 5006, September 2007. 1284 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 1285 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, 1286 September 2007. 1288 [RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over 1289 PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. 1291 [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. 1292 Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 1293 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, 1294 February 2008. 1296 [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and 1297 Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. 1299 [USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile 1300 for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008, 1301 . 1303 Authors' Addresses 1305 Ed Jankiewicz 1306 SRI International, Inc. 1307 1161 Broad Street - Suite 212 1308 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 1309 USA 1311 Phone: 443-502-5815 1312 Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com 1314 John Loughney 1315 Nokia 1316 955 Page Mill Road 1317 Palo Alto 94303 1318 USA 1320 Phone: +1 650 283 8068 1321 Email: john.loughney@nokia.com 1323 Thomas Narten 1324 IBM Corporation 1325 3039 Cornwallis Ave. 1326 PO Box 12195 1327 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1328 USA 1330 Phone: +1 919 254 7798 1331 Email: narten@us.ibm.com