idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.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 (May 23, 2011) is 4715 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 normative reference: RFC 6204 (Obsoleted by RFC 7084) -- 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: 12 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: November 24, 2011 T. Narten 7 IBM Corporation 8 May 23, 2011 10 IPv6 Node Requirements 11 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-10.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 November 24, 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 . . . . . . . 10 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 - RFC 3315 . . . . 13 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 98 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 117 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) . . . . . . . . 20 123 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 124 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 One ID version to Another . . . . . . . 21 132 17.1. Appendix: Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 133 17.2. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 134 17.3. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 135 17.4. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 136 17.5. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 137 17.6. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 138 17.7. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 139 18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 140 19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 141 19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 142 19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 143 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 145 1. Requirements Language 147 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 148 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 149 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 151 2. Introduction 153 This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6 154 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or 155 additional features, but this document collects and summarizes 156 requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one 157 place. 159 This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and 160 references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an 161 Applicability Statement and provide guidance as to which IPv6 162 specifications should be implemented in the general case, and which 163 specification may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios. 164 This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs. 166 Although the document points to different specifications, it should 167 be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular 168 requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many 169 specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may 170 not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both 171 client and server behavior in the same specification, while many 172 implementations will be focused on only one of those roles. 174 This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a 175 device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range 176 of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range 177 of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this 178 document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is 179 perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to 180 define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific 181 usage and deployment environments. For example, this document does 182 not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment 183 scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For 184 example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for 185 specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments [DODv6] and 186 [USGv6]. 188 As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact 189 usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is 190 that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: 192 Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from 193 others [RFC0793]. 195 2.1. Scope of This Document 197 IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be 198 deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, 199 it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure 200 interoperability. 202 This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum 203 requirements specified here. 205 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 207 From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460], 208 we have the following definitions: 210 Description of an IPv6 Node 212 - a device that implements IPv6. 214 Description of an IPv6 router 216 - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to 217 itself. 219 Description of an IPv6 Host 221 - any node that is not a router. 223 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 225 ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode 226 AH Authentication Header 227 DAD Duplicate Address Detection 228 ESP Encapsulating Security Payload 229 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol 230 IKE Internet Key Exchange 231 MIB Management Information Base 232 MLD Multicast Listener Discovery 233 MTU Maximum Transfer Unit 234 NA Neighbor Advertisement 235 NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access 236 ND Neighbor Discovery 237 NS Neighbor Solicitation 238 NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection 239 PPP Point-to-Point Protocol 240 PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit 241 SVC Switched Virtual Circuit 243 4. Sub-IP Layer 245 An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer 246 specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation 247 should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the 248 hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant 249 IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on 250 others. 252 As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new 253 specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the 254 link-layers for which an IPv6 specification has been developed. It 255 is provided for information purposes only, and may not be complete. 257 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464] 258 - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] 259 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks 260 Specification [RFC2590] 261 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146] 262 - Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) 263 Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338] 264 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] 265 - Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 266 802.16 Networks [RFC5121] 267 - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] 269 In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible 270 to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: 272 - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address 273 Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] 274 - Section 3 of "Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms" [RFC4213] 276 5. IP Layer 277 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 279 The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This 280 specification MUST be supported. 282 Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as 283 described in RFC 2460. 285 The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. 287 Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment 288 headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of 289 sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY 290 be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in 291 [RFC5722]. 293 RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these 294 headers. 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" [RFC4191] 358 provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks 359 each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers 360 via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide 361 connectivity to destinations the other router does not and choosing 362 the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In 363 such cases, RFC4191 can help. 365 Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers 366 adhering to [RFC6204], use [RFC4191] to advertise routes to certain 367 local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in 368 SOHO environments SHOULD implement [RFC4191]. 370 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 372 SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) 373 [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor 374 Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4 375 counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain 376 classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some 377 implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment 378 experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF 379 working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on 380 additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for 381 deployment. 383 At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide 384 SEND functionality. 386 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 388 Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router 389 Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends 390 the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this 391 writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2 392 remain available for future assignment. No flags have been defined 393 that make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is 394 no requirement to implement the option today. However, 395 implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a 396 higher level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a 397 user-level process using a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to 398 handle the option in anticipation of a future usage. 400 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 402 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 404 "Path MTU Discovery" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported. From [RFC2460]: 406 It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU 407 Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of 408 path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 409 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to 410 sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit 411 implementation of Path MTU Discovery. 413 The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet 414 fragmentation and reassembly. 416 One operational issue with Path MTU discovery occurs when firewalls 417 block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU discovery relies on 418 such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully 419 sent. Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery [RFC4821] avoids having 420 a dependency on Packet Too Big messages. 422 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 424 IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an optional extension that allow the 425 sending of IP datagrams larger than 65.535 bytes. IPv6 Jumbograms 426 make use of IPv6 hop-by-hop options and are only suitable on paths in 427 which every hop and link are capable of supporting Jumbograms (e.g., 428 within a campus or datacenter). To date, few implementations exist 429 and there is essentially no reported experience from usage. 430 Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time. 432 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 434 ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- 435 Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported. 437 5.9. Addressing 439 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 441 The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. 443 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 445 Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as 446 defined in [RFC4862]. Static address may be supported as well. 448 Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses 449 as described in RFC 4862 [RFC4862]. 451 From 4862: 453 The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies 454 only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses 455 information advertised by routers, routers will need to be 456 configured by some other means. However, it is expected that 457 routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism 458 described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to 459 successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure 460 described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning 461 them to an interface. 463 All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from 464 Section 5.4 of RFC 4862: 466 Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast 467 addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of 468 whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration, 469 DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions 470 noted therein]. 472 "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429] 473 specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating 474 addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. RFC 475 4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce 476 the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly 477 move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize 478 transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 is not 479 considered to be necessary at this time. 481 5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 483 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] 484 addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is 485 concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem 486 arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes 487 its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless 488 Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion 489 of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. Thus, 490 although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its 491 point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those 492 addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track 493 the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its 494 pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise 495 privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862]. 497 In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, 498 such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides 499 limited or no benefit. 501 Implementers of "RFC4941 should be aware that certain addresses are 502 reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses. 503 Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more 504 details. 506 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 508 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 509 [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. IPv6 nodes will need to deal 510 with multiple addresses configured simultaneously. 512 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 3315 514 DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In 515 general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses 516 through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6 or both. There will be a wide 517 range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment 518 requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for address 519 assignment. Consequently all hosts SHOULD implement address 520 configuration via DHCPv6. 522 In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address 523 assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other 524 configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of 525 [RFC4862]. 527 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 529 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 530 [RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive 531 and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used 532 on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and 533 requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. 535 MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting 536 Source-Specific Multicast. The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810] 537 supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of 538 "filter modes". Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a 539 multicast group along with a list of senders for that group it wishes 540 to receive traffic from. Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node indicates a 541 multicast group along with a list of senders it wishes to exclude 542 receiving traffic from. In practice, operations to block source(s) 543 using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used, but add considerable 544 implementation complexity to MLDv2. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] is a 545 simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification that omits 546 EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s). 548 Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 549 [RFC5790]. Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source- 550 Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE 551 functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], 552 [RFC4604] and [RFC4607]. Nodes supporting applications that expect 553 to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as 554 Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support MLDv2 as 555 defined in [RFC5790]. 557 If a node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast 558 (i.e, they do not use source-specific multicast), implementing MLDv1 559 [RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, however, nodes are strongly 560 encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, 561 as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that 562 all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode. 564 When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the 565 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be 566 followed. 568 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration 570 In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating 571 configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements and DHCP. 572 Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed 573 essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are 574 configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the 575 Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, 576 DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general 577 parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That 578 said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option 579 should be configured via DHCP vs. an RA option has not always been 580 easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define 581 only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than 582 defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same 583 information. 585 One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same 586 information is that if a host chooses one mechanism, but the network 587 operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers. 588 For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant 589 influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what 590 configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to 591 ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected 592 hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices 593 may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize 594 interoperability in such environments hosts would need to implement 595 multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. 597 Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was 598 performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined, 599 but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router 600 Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published 601 as a Standards Track Document. Consequently, DNS configuration 602 information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs. 603 Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be 604 implemented. 606 7. DNS and DHCP 608 7.1. DNS 610 DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596]. 611 Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need 612 to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. 613 However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure 614 capability that applications rely on and most nodes will need to 615 provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034] 616 functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for: 618 - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; 619 - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; 620 - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 621 octets. 623 Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions 624 [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035]. 626 Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 627 Resource Records [RFC3363]. 629 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 631 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information 633 IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration 634 information (See Section 5.8.5) and to obtain additional (non- 635 address) configuration. If a host implementation supports 636 applications or other protocols that require configuration that is 637 only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For 638 specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present, 639 DHCP may not be necessary. 641 An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to 642 obtain other configuration information. 644 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 646 Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 647 are expected to determine their default router information and on- 648 link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. 650 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106 652 Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that 653 are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS 654 configuration was not included as an RA option and DHCP was the 655 recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time, 656 the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now 657 generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without 658 having access to a working DNS resolver. RFC 5006 was published as 659 an experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was 660 placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106]. 662 Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106]. 664 8. IPv4 Support and Transition 666 IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. 668 8.1. Transition Mechanisms 670 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 671 4213 673 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] 674 MUST be supported. 676 9. Application Support 678 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 680 Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in 681 text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text 682 Representation" [RFC5952]. 684 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) 686 There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not 687 mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly 688 relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementers, however, 689 would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing 690 existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to 691 applications. 693 "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6 694 functionality used by typical applications. Implementers should note 695 that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by POSIX 696 [POSIX]. 698 "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6" 699 [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by 700 diagnostic and other more specialized applications. 702 "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides 703 facilities that allow an application to override the default Source 704 Address Selection rules of [RFC3484]. 706 "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678] 707 provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group 708 memberships. 710 "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides 711 application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 features. 712 [RFC3775] 714 10. Mobility 716 Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776] 717 [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the 718 Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All 719 communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as 720 expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP 721 includes requirements for the following types of nodes: 723 - mobile nodes 724 - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization 725 - home agents 726 - all IPv6 routers 728 At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation 729 and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed 730 an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. 731 Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- 732 mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555]. 734 More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before 735 any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in 736 all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and 737 associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this 738 time. 740 11. Security 742 This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. 744 Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational 745 procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate 746 management approaches, etc. are all components that impact the level 747 of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly, 748 deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can 749 significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular 750 security approach. 752 IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it 753 possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of) 754 communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes. 755 IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual 756 TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc. 758 Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such 759 usage has limited applicability and is not recommended. 761 A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today 762 (e.g., IPsec, TLS, SSH, etc.) No one approach has emerged as an 763 ideal technology for all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is 764 not viewed as the ideal security technology in all cases and is 765 unlikely to displace the others. 767 Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the 768 key management approach of IKE. This document updates that 769 recommendation by making support of the IP Security Architecture [RFC 770 4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 771 requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both 772 manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated 773 key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996]. 775 This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types 776 and environments where other approaches to security than IPsec can be 777 justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a 778 very limited number or type of applications and an application- 779 specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management 780 or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices my run on 781 extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full IP 782 Security Architecture is not justified. 784 11.1. Requirements 786 "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be 787 supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 788 requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both 789 manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated 790 key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required in 791 [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST 792 implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302]. 794 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms 796 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IP 797 Security Architecture are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm 798 Implementation Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes 799 implementing the IP Security Architecture MUST conform to the 800 requirements in [RFC4835]. Preferred cryptographic algorithms often 801 change more frequently than security protocols. Therefore 802 implementations MUST allow for migration to new algorithms, as 803 RFC4835 is replaced or updated in the future. 805 The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are 806 defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key 807 Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)' [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 808 MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future 809 updates or replacements to [RFC4307]. 811 12. Router-Specific Functionality 813 This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that 814 act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- 815 specific requirements. 817 12.1. General 819 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 821 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop 822 Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP 823 [RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be 824 implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are 825 implemented. See Section 5.9. 827 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 829 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST 830 be supported. 832 Section 7 of RFC 3775 includes some mobility-specific extensions to 833 Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5, 834 even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality. 836 13. Network Management 838 Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 839 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only 840 possible way of controlling these nodes. 842 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 844 The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that 845 support an SNMP agent. 847 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 849 IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that 850 support an SNMP agent. 852 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 854 IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP 855 agent. 857 14. Security Considerations 859 This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, 860 beyond the security considerations associated with the individual 861 protocols. 863 Security is also discussed in Section 10 above. 865 15. IANA Considerations 867 This document has no requests for IANA. 869 16. Authors and Acknowledgments 871 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 873 For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors 874 would like to thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph 875 Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka 876 Savola, Yaron Sheffer and Dave Thaler for their comments. 878 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 880 The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the 881 IPv6 Node Requirements design team: 883 Jari Arkko 884 jari.arkko@ericsson.com 885 Marc Blanchet 886 marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 887 Samita Chakrabarti 888 samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com 889 Alain Durand 890 alain.durand@sun.com 891 Gerard Gastaud 892 gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr 893 Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 894 itojun@iijlab.net 895 Atsushi Inoue 896 inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 897 Masahiro Ishiyama 898 masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 899 John Loughney 900 john.loughney@nokia.com 901 Rajiv Raghunarayan 902 raraghun@cisco.com 903 Shoichi Sakane 904 shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com 905 Dave Thaler 906 dthaler@windows.microsoft.com 907 Juha Wiljakka 908 juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com 910 The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian 911 Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas 912 Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to 913 Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to 914 Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs. 916 17. Appendix: Changes from One ID version to Another 918 RFC Editor: Please remove this section upon publication. 920 17.1. Appendix: Changes from -09 to -10 922 1. With changes in requirements for IPsec and Routing Headers, 923 clarified language regarding processing of unknown options, and 924 removed paragraph lising which extension headers were required to 925 be implemented. 926 2. Removed "RFC4292-bis" from title. 927 3. Expanded the text on Jumbograms. 929 4. Changed recommendation of DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD. 930 5. Expanded the text on RFC4191, and changed recommendation from MAY 931 to SHOULD. 933 17.2. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 935 1. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD 936 [RFC5790] 938 17.3. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 940 1. Dropped reference to "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains 941 without Explicit Tunnels" [RFC2429] in favor of a reference to 942 tunneling via Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms (RFC4313). 943 2. Added reference to "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific 944 Routes" [RFC4191] as a MAY. 945 3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 946 for IPv6" (RFC4429). 947 4. Added reference to RFC4941 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" 948 5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and none are 949 required. 950 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 951 SHOULD be implemented 952 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 953 MUST to implement. 954 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 955 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 957 17.4. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 959 1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 960 of RFC 3775. 961 2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC 962 6106) has been published. 963 3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation. 964 4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added 965 as a MAY. 966 5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 967 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 968 SHOULD be implemented 969 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 970 MUST to implement. 971 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 972 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 974 17.5. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 976 1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed 977 by 6man and saag. 978 2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies 979 to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in 980 their requirements 981 3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular. 982 Text made more crisp. 983 4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address 984 discussion to Section 5.8.5. 985 5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t. 986 default configuration setting. 988 17.6. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 990 1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD) 991 still open. 992 2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options. 993 3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs 994 (RFC5006bis). 995 4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits. 996 5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section. 998 17.7. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 1000 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability 1001 statement 1002 2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols 1003 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 1004 added some more RFCs. 1005 4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY) 1006 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance 1007 to recommendation 1008 6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs. 1010 18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 1012 1. There have been many editorial clarifications as well as 1013 significant additions and updates. While this section 1014 highlights some of the changes, readers should not rely on this 1015 section for a comprehensive list of all changes. 1016 2. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an 1017 applicability statement and that this document is aimed at 1018 general nodes. 1020 3. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding 1021 references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAY. 1022 4. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 1023 added some more RFCs. 1024 5. Added Section on SEND (it is a MAY) 1025 6. Revised Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more 1026 nuance to recommendation. 1027 7. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 Section, downgrading overall 1028 recommendation to a SHOULD. 1029 8. Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD. 1030 9. Added background section on DHCP vs RA options, added SHOULD 1031 recommendation sfor DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106), 1032 cleaned up DHCP recommendations 1033 10. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 1034 of RFC 3775. 1035 11. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 1036 12. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 1037 SHOULD be implemented 1038 13. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 1039 MUST to implement. 1040 14. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 1041 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 1042 15. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363. 1043 16. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents, 1044 including 4443, 4291, 3596, 4213. 1045 17. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There 1046 is no consensus at present on how to process these flags and 1047 discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent 1048 update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (RFC 4862). 1049 18. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents. 1050 19. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 1051 [RFC5952] a SHOULD. 1052 20. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 1053 MUST to implement. 1054 21. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD 1055 [RFC5790] 1056 22. Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and 1057 More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]. 1059 19. References 1061 19.1. Normative References 1063 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 1064 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 1066 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 1067 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 1069 [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery 1070 for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. 1072 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1073 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1075 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1076 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 1078 [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", 1079 RFC 2671, August 1999. 1081 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 1082 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, 1083 October 1999. 1085 [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", 1086 RFC 2711, October 1999. 1088 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 1089 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 1090 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 1092 [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet 1093 Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. 1095 [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast 1096 Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, 1097 September 2003. 1099 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 1100 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 1101 October 2003. 1103 [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 1104 (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. 1106 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery 1107 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 1109 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1110 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 1111 RFC 4033, March 2005. 1113 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1114 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 1115 RFC 4034, March 2005. 1117 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 1118 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 1119 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 1121 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 1122 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 1124 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 1125 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 1127 [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, 1128 April 2006. 1130 [RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the 1131 Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006. 1133 [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the 1134 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 1136 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 1137 RFC 4303, December 2005. 1139 [RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the 1140 Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, 1141 December 2005. 1143 [RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load 1144 Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005. 1146 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 1147 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 1148 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 1150 [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet 1151 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 1152 Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source- 1153 Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006. 1155 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 1156 IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. 1158 [RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 1159 Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and 1160 Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007. 1162 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 1163 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 1164 September 2007. 1166 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 1167 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 1169 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 1170 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 1171 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 1173 [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation 1174 of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, 1175 December 2007. 1177 [RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers", 1178 RFC 5453, February 2009. 1180 [RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments", 1181 RFC 5722, December 2009. 1183 [RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet 1184 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 1185 Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790, 1186 February 2010. 1188 [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet 1189 Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet 1190 Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010. 1192 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 1193 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. 1195 [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, 1196 "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", 1197 RFC 5996, September 2010. 1199 [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 1200 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", 1201 RFC 6106, November 2010. 1203 [RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O. 1204 Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge 1205 Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011. 1207 19.2. Informative References 1209 [DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6 1210 Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0", 1211 July 2010, 1212 . 1214 [POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information 1215 Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), 1216 ISO/IEC 9945:2002", December 2001, 1217 . 1219 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 1220 RFC 793, September 1981. 1222 [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 1223 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 1224 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 1226 [RFC2429] Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco, 1227 C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and C. 1228 Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T 1229 Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)", RFC 2429, October 1998. 1231 [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet 1232 Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. 1234 [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM 1235 Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. 1237 [RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of 1238 IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", 1239 RFC 2590, May 1999. 1241 [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", 1242 RFC 2675, August 1999. 1244 [RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets 1245 over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001. 1247 [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. 1248 Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) 1249 Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, 1250 August 2002. 1252 [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. 1253 Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", 1254 RFC 3493, February 2003. 1256 [RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei, 1257 "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for 1258 IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003. 1260 [RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface 1261 Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678, 1262 January 2004. 1264 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 1265 in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 1267 [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to 1268 Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and 1269 Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. 1271 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure 1272 Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. 1274 [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", 1275 RFC 3972, March 2005. 1277 [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and 1278 More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005. 1280 [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, 1281 December 2005. 1283 [RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of 1284 IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets 1285 over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006. 1287 [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through 1288 Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, 1289 February 2006. 1291 [RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 1292 for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006. 1294 [RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API 1295 for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, July 2006. 1297 [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU 1298 Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007. 1300 [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with 1301 IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, 1302 April 2007. 1304 [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, 1305 "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, 1306 April 2007. 1308 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, 1309 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 1310 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. 1312 [RFC5006] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 1313 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration", 1314 RFC 5006, September 2007. 1316 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 1317 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, 1318 September 2007. 1320 [RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over 1321 PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. 1323 [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. 1324 Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 1325 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, 1326 February 2008. 1328 [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and 1329 Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. 1331 [USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile 1332 for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008, 1333 . 1335 Authors' Addresses 1337 Ed Jankiewicz 1338 SRI International, Inc. 1339 1161 Broad Street - Suite 212 1340 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 1341 USA 1343 Phone: 443-502-5815 1344 Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com 1345 John Loughney 1346 Nokia 1347 955 Page Mill Road 1348 Palo Alto 94303 1349 USA 1351 Phone: +1 650 283 8068 1352 Email: john.loughney@nokia.com 1354 Thomas Narten 1355 IBM Corporation 1356 3039 Cornwallis Ave. 1357 PO Box 12195 1358 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 1359 USA 1361 Phone: +1 919 254 7798 1362 Email: narten@us.ibm.com