idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC 2119' is mentioned on line 67, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 542, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 545, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3587 (ref. 'GLOBAL') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (ref. 'IPV6') (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1321 (ref. 'MD5DIG') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1305 (ref. 'NTP') (Obsoleted by RFC 5905) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'POPUL' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1750 (ref. 'RANDOM') (Obsoleted by RFC 4086) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2462 (ref. 'ADDAUTO') (Obsoleted by RFC 4862) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3484 (ref. 'ADDSEL') (Obsoleted by RFC 6724) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3315 (ref. 'DHCP6') (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1889 (ref. 'RTP') (Obsoleted by RFC 3550) Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT R. Hinden, Nokia 2 September 23, 2003 Brian Haberman, Caspian 4 Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses 6 8 Status of this Memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 11 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working 12 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 13 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 14 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 17 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 18 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 19 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 21 To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see 22 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 24 This internet draft expires on March 28, 2004. 26 Abstract 28 This document defines an unicast address format that is globally 29 unique and is intended for local communications, usually inside of a 30 site. They are not expected to be routable on the global Internet 31 given current routing technology. 33 1.0 Introduction 35 This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally 36 unique and is intended for local communications [IPV6]. These 37 addresses are called Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses and are 38 abbreviated in this document as Local IPv6 addresses. They are not 39 expected to be routable on the global Internet given current routing 40 technology. They are routable inside of a more limited area such as 41 a site. They may also be routed between a limited set of sites. 43 Local IPv6 unicast addresses have the following characteristics: 45 - Globally unique prefix. 46 - Well known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site 47 boundaries. 48 - Allows sites to be combined or privately interconnected without 49 creating any address conflicts or require renumbering of 50 interfaces using these prefixes. 51 - Internet Service Provider independent and can be used for 52 communications inside of a site without having any permanent or 53 intermittent Internet connectivity. 54 - If accidentally leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS, 55 there is no conflict with any other addresses. 56 - In practice, applications may treat these address like global 57 scoped addresses. 59 This document defines the format of Local IPv6 addresses, how to 60 allocate them, and usage considerations including routing, site 61 border routers, DNS, application support, VPN usage, and guidelines 62 for how to use for local communication inside a site. 64 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 65 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 66 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. 68 2.0 Acknowledgments 70 The underlying idea of creating Local IPv6 addresses described in 71 this document been proposed a number of times by a variety of people. 72 The authors of this draft do not claim exclusive credit. Credit goes 73 to Brian Carpenter, Christian Huitema, Aidan Williams, Andrew White, 74 Charlie Perkins, and many others. The authors would also like to 75 thank Brian Carpenter, Charlie Perkins, Harald Alvestrand, Keith 76 Moore, Margaret Wasserman, Shannon Behrens, Alan Beard, Hans Kruse, 77 and Geoff Huston for their comments and suggestions on this document. 79 3.0 Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses 81 3.1 Format 83 The Local IPv6 addresses are created using a centrally allocated 84 global ID. They have the following format: 86 | n | 87 | bits | m bits | 16 bits | 64 bits | 88 +--------+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ 89 | prefix | global ID | subnet ID | interface ID | 90 +--------+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ 92 Where: 94 prefix prefix to identify Local IPv6 unicast addresses. 96 global ID global identifier used to create a globally 97 unique prefix. See section 3.2 for additional 98 information. 100 subnet ID 16-bit subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet 101 within the site. 103 interface ID 64-bit IID as defined in [ADDARCH]. 105 There are a range of choices available when choosing the size of the 106 prefix and Global ID field length. There is a direct tradeoff 107 between having a Global ID field large enough to support foreseeable 108 future growth and not using too much of the IPv6 address space 109 needlessly. A reasonable way of evaluating a specific field length 110 is to compare it to a projected 2050 world population of 9.3 billion 111 [POPUL] to compare the number of resulting /48 prefixes per person. 112 A range of prefix choices is shown in the following table: 114 Prefix Global ID Number /48 Prefixes % of IPv6 115 Length Prefixes per Person Address Space 117 /11 37 137,438,953,472 15 0.049% 118 /10 38 274,877,906,944 30 0.098% 119 /9 39 549,755,813,888 59 0.195% 120 /8 40 1,099,511,627,776 118 0.391% 121 /7 41 2,199,023,255,552 236 0.781% 122 /6 42 4,398,046,511,104 473 1.563% 124 A very high utilization ratio of these allocations can be assumed 125 because no internal structure is required in the field nor is there 126 any reason to be able to aggregate the prefixes. 128 The authors believes that a /7 prefix resulting in a 41 bit Global ID 129 is a good choice. It provides for a large number of assignments 130 (i.e., 2.2 trillion) and at the same time uses less than .8% of the 131 total IPv6 address space. It is unlikely that this space will be 132 exhausted. If more than this was needed, then additional IPv6 133 address space could be allocated for this purpose. 135 For the rest of this document the FC00::/7 prefix and a 41-bit Global 136 ID is used. 138 3.2 Global ID 140 The allocation of global IDs should be pseudo-random [RANDOM]. They 141 should not be assigned sequentially or with well known numbers. This 142 to ensure that there is not any relationship between allocations and 143 to help clarify that these prefixes are not intended to be routed 144 globally. Specifically, these prefixes are designed to not 145 aggregate. 147 There are two ways to allocate Global IDs. These are centrally by a 148 allocation authority and locally by the site. The Global ID is split 149 into two parts for each type of allocation. The prefixes for each 150 type are: 152 FC00::/8 Centrally assigned 153 FD00::/8 Locally assigned 155 Each results in a 40-bit space to allocate. 157 Two assignment methods are included because they have different 158 properties. The centrally assigned global IDs have a much higher 159 probability that they are unique and the assignments can be escrowed 160 to resolve any disputes regarding duplicate assignments. The local 161 assignments are free and do not need any central coordination or 162 assignment, but have a lower (but still adequate) probability of 163 being unique. It is expected that large managed sites will prefer 164 central assignments and small or disconnected sites will prefer local 165 assignments. It is recommended that sites planning to use Local IPv6 166 addresses for extensive inter-site communication use a centrally 167 assigned prefix as the possibility of any conflicts is lower. Sites 168 are free to choose either approach. 170 3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs 172 Centrally assigned global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random 173 algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. They should not be assigned 174 sequentially or by locality. This to ensure that there is not any 175 relationship between allocations and to help clarify that these 176 prefixes are not intended to be routed globally. Specifically, these 177 prefixes are designed to not aggregate. 179 Global IDs should be assigned centrally by a single allocation 180 authority because they are pseudo-random and without any structure. 181 This is easiest to accomplish if there is a single source of the 182 assignments. 184 The requirements for centrally assigned global ID allocations are: 186 - Available to anyone in an unbiased manner. 187 - Permanent with no periodic fees. 188 - One time non-refundable allocation fee in the order of 10 Euros 189 (at January 1, 2004 exchange rates) per allocation. 190 - The ownership of each individual allocation should be private, 191 but should be escrowed. 193 The allocation authority should permit allocations to be obtained 194 without having any sort of internet connectivity. For example in 195 addition to web based registration they should support some methods 196 like telephone, postal mail, fax, telex, etc. They should also 197 accept a variety of payment methods and currencies. 199 The reason for the one time 10 Euro charge for each prefix is to 200 provide a barrier to any hoarding of the these allocations but at the 201 same time keep the cost low enough to not create a barrier to anyone 202 needing one. The charge is one time to eliminate the need for an 203 ongoing relationship with the allocation authority. The charge is 204 non-refundable in order to keep overhead low. 206 The ownership of the allocations is not needed to be public since the 207 resulting addresses are intended to be used for local communication. 208 It is escrowed to insure there are no duplicate allocations and in 209 case it is needed in the future (e.g., to resolve duplicate 210 allocation disputes). 212 Note, there are many possible ways of of creating an allocation 213 authority. It is important to keep in mind when reviewing 214 alternatives that the goal is to pick one that can do the job. It 215 doesn't have to be perfect, only good enough to do the job at hand. 217 This document directs the IANA, in section 13.0, to delegate the 218 FC00::/8 prefix to an allocation authority to allocate centrally 219 assigned /48 prefixes consistent with the requirements defined in 220 this section. 222 3.2.2 Locally Assigned Global IDs 224 Global IDs can also be generated locally by an individual site. This 225 makes it easy to get a prefix with out the need to contact an 226 assignment authority or internet service provider. There is not as 227 high a degree of assurance that the prefix will not conflict with 228 another locally generated prefix, but the likelihood of conflict is 229 small. Sites that are not comfortable with this degree of 230 uncertainty should use a centrally assigned global ID. 232 Locally assigned global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random 233 algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. Section 3.2.3 describes a 234 suggested algorithm. It is important to insure a reasonable 235 likelihood uniqueness that all sites generating a Global IDs use a 236 functionally similar algorithm. 238 3.2.3 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm 240 The algorithm described below is intended to be used for centrally 241 and locally assigned Global IDs. In each case the resulting global 242 ID will be used in the appropriate prefix as defined in section 3.2. 244 1) Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format [NTP]. 245 2) Obtain an EUI-64 identifier from the system running this 246 algorithm. If an EUI-64 does not exist, one can be created from 247 a 48-bit MAC address as specified in [ADDARCH]. If an EUI-64 248 cannot be obtained or created, a suitably unique identifier, 249 local to the node, should be used (e.g. system serial number). 250 3) Concatenate the time of day with the system-specific identifier 251 creating a key. 252 4) Compute an MD5 digest on the key as specified in [MD5DIG]. 253 5) Use the least significant 40 bits as the Global ID. 255 This algorithm will result in a global ID that is reasonably unique 256 and can be used as a Global ID. 258 3.2.4 Analysis of the Uniqueness of Global IDs 260 The selection of a pseudo random global ID is similar to the 261 selection of an SSRC identifier in RTP/RTCP defined in section 8.1 of 262 [RTP]. This analysis is adapted from that document. 264 Since the global ID is chosen randomly, it is possible that two or 265 more networks that have an inter-network connection using globally- 266 unique local addresses will chose the same global ID. The 267 probability of collision can be approximated based on the number of 268 inter-connections using globally-unique local addresses and the 269 length of the ID (40 bits). The formula 271 P = 1 - exp(-N**2 / 2**(L+1)) 273 approximates the probability of collision (where N is the number 274 inter-connections and L is the length of the global ID). 276 The following table shows the probability of a collision for a range 277 of inter-connections using a 40 bit global ID field. 279 Inter-connections Probability of Collision 281 2 1.81**-12 282 10 4.54**-11 283 100 4.54**-09 284 1000 4.54**-07 285 10000 4.54**-05 287 Based on this analysis the uniqueness of locally generated global IDs 288 is adequate for sites planning a small to moderate amount inter-site 289 communication using locally generated global IDs. Sites planning 290 more extensive inter-site communication should consider using the 291 centrally assigned global ID. 293 3.3 Scope Definition 295 By default, the scope of these addresses is global. That is, they 296 are not limited by ambiguity like the site-local addresses defined in 297 [ADDARCH]. Rather, these prefixes are globally unique, and as such, 298 their applicability exceeds the current site-local addresses. Their 299 limitation is in the routability of the prefixes, which is limited to 300 a site and any explicit routing agreements with other sites to 301 propagate them. Also, unlike site-locals, these prefixes can overlap 302 each other. 304 4.0 Routing 306 Local IPv6 addresses are designed to be routed inside of a site in 307 the same manner as other types of unicast addresses. They can be 308 carried in any IPv6 routing protocol without any change. 310 It is expected that they would share the same subnet IDs with 311 provider based global unicast addresses if they were being used 312 concurrently [GLOBAL]. 314 Any routing protocol that is used between sites MUST filter out any 315 incoming or outgoing Local IPv6 unicast routes. The exception to 316 this is if specific /48 IPv6 local unicast routes have been 317 configured to allow for inter-site communication. 319 If BGP is being used at the site border with an ISP, filters MUST be 320 installed by default in the BGP configuration to keep any Local IPv6 321 address prefixes from being advertised outside of the site or for 322 these prefixes to be learned from another site. The exception to 323 this is if there are specific /48 routes created for one or more 324 Local IPv6 prefixes. 326 5.0 Renumbering and Site Merging 328 The use of Local IPv6 addresses in a site results in making 329 communication using these addresses independent of renumbering a 330 site's provider based global addresses. 332 When merging multiple sites none of the addresses created with these 333 prefixes need to be renumbered because all of the addresses are 334 unique. Routes for each specific prefix would have to be configured 335 to allow routing to work correctly between the formerly separate 336 sites. 338 6.0 Site Border Router and Firewall Packet Filtering 340 While no serious harm will be done if packets with these addresses 341 are sent outside of a site via a default route, it is recommended 342 that they be filtered to keep any packets with Local IPv6 destination 343 addresses from leaking outside of the site and to keep any site 344 prefixes from being advertised outside of their site. 346 Site border routers SHOULD install a black hole route for the Local 347 IPv6 prefix FC00::/7. This will insure that packets with Local IPv6 348 destination addresses will not be forwarded outside of the site via a 349 default route. 351 Site border routers and firewalls SHOULD NOT forward any packets with 352 Local IPv6 source or destination addresses outside of the site unless 353 they have been explicitly configured with routing information about 354 other Local IPv6 prefixes. The default behavior of these devices 355 SHOULD be to filter them. 357 Additionally, domain border routers connecting autonomous systems 358 throughout the Internet SHOULD obey these recommendations for site 359 border routers. 361 7.0 DNS Issues 363 AAAA records for Local IPv6 addresses SHOULD NOT be installed in the 364 global DNS. They may be installed in a naming system local to the 365 site or kept separate from the global DNS using techniques such as 366 "two-faced" DNS. 368 If Local IPv6 address are configured in the global DNS, no harm is 369 done because they are unique and will not create any confusion. They 370 may not be reachable, but this is a property that is common to all 371 types of global IPv6 unicast addresses. 373 For future study names with Local IPv6 addresses may be resolved 374 inside of the site using dynamic naming systems such as Multicast 375 DNS. 377 8.0 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues 379 Application and other higher level protocols can treat Local IPv6 380 addresses in the same manner as other types of global unicast 381 addresses. No special handling is required. This type of addresses 382 may not be reachable, but that is no different from other types of 383 IPv6 global unicast addresses. Applications need to be able to 384 handle multiple addresses that may or may not be reachable any point 385 in time. In most cases this complexity should be hidden in APIs. 387 From a host's perspective this difference shows up as different 388 reachability than global unicast and could be handled by default that 389 way. In some cases it is better for nodes and applications to treat 390 them differently from global unicast addresses. A starting point 391 might be to give them preference over global unicast, but fall back 392 to global unicast if a particular destination is found to be 393 unreachable. Much of this behavior can be controlled by how they are 394 allocated to nodes and put into the DNS. However it is useful if a 395 host can have both types of addresses and use them appropriately. 397 Note that the address selection mechanisms of [ADDSEL], and in 398 particular the policy override mechanism replacing default address 399 selection, are expected to be used on a site where Local IPv6 400 addresses are configured. 402 9.0 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses for Local Communications 404 Local IPv6 addresses, like global scope unicast addresses, are only 405 assigned to nodes if their use has been enabled (via IPv6 address 406 autoconfiguration [ADDAUTO], DHCPv6 [DHCP6], or manually) and 407 configured in the DNS. They are not created automatically the way 408 that IPv6 link-local addresses are and will not appear or be used 409 unless they are purposely configured. 411 In order for hosts to autoconfigure Local IPv6 addresses, routers 412 have to be configured to advertise Local IPv6 /64 prefixes in router 413 advertisements. Likewise, a DHCPv6 server must have been configured 414 to assign them. In order for a node to learn the Local IPv6 address 415 of another node, the Local IPv6 address must have been installed in 416 the DNS. For these reasons, it is straight forward to control their 417 usage in a site. 419 To limit the use of Local IPv6 addresses the following guidelines 420 apply: 422 - Nodes that are to only be reachable inside of a site: The local 423 DNS should be configured to only include the Local IPv6 424 addresses of these nodes. Nodes with only Local IPv6 addresses 425 must not be installed in the global DNS. 427 - Nodes that are to be limited to only communicate with other 428 nodes in the site: These nodes should be set to only 429 autoconfigure Local IPv6 addresses via [ADDAUTO] or to only 430 receive Local IPv6 addresses via [DHCP6]. Note: For the case 431 where both global and Local IPv6 prefixes are being advertised 432 on a subnet, this will require a switch in the devices to only 433 autoconfigure Local IPv6 addresses. 435 - Nodes that are to be reachable from inside of the site and from 436 outside of the site: The DNS should be configured to include 437 the global addresses of these nodes. The local DNS may be 438 configured to also include the Local IPv6 addresses of these 439 nodes. 441 - Nodes that can communicate with other nodes inside of the site 442 and outside of the site: These nodes should autoconfigure global 443 addresses via [ADDAUTO] or receive global address via [DHCP6]. 444 They may also obtain Local IPv6 addresses via the same 445 mechanisms. 447 10.0 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses with VPNs 449 Local IPv6 addresses can be used for inter-site Virtual Private 450 Networks (VPN) if appropriate routes are set up. Because the 451 addresses are unique these VPNs will work reliably and without the 452 need for translation. They have the additional property that they 453 will continue to work if the individual sites are renumbered or 454 merged. 456 11.0 Advantages and Disadvantages 458 11.1 Advantages 460 This approach has the following advantages: 462 - Provides Local IPv6 prefixes that can be used independently of 463 any provider based IPv6 unicast address allocations. This is 464 useful for sites not always connected to the Internet or sites 465 that wish to have a distinct prefix that can be used to localize 466 traffic inside of the site. 467 - Applications can treat these addresses in an identical manner as 468 any other type of global IPv6 unicast addresses. 469 - Sites can be merged without any renumbering of the Local IPv6 470 addresses. 471 - Sites can change their provider based IPv6 unicast address 472 without disrupting any communication using Local IPv6 addresses. 473 - Well known prefix that allows for easy filtering at site 474 boundary. 475 - Can be used for inter-site VPNs. 476 - If accidently leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS, there 477 is no conflict with any other addresses. 479 11.2 Disadvantages 481 This approach has the following disadvantages: 483 - Not possible to route Local IPv6 prefixes on the global Internet 484 with current routing technology. Consequentially, it is 485 necessary to have the default behavior of site border routers to 486 filter these addresses. 487 - There is a very low probability of non-unique locally assigned 488 global IDs being generated by the algorithm in section 3.2.3. 489 This risk can be ignored for all practical purposes, but it 490 leads to a theoretical risk of clashing address prefixes. 492 12.0 Security Considerations 494 Local IPv6 addresses do not provide any inherent security to the 495 nodes that use them. They may be used with filters at site 496 boundaries to keep Local IPv6 traffic inside of the site, but this is 497 no more or less secure than filtering any other type of global IPv6 498 unicast addresses. 500 Local IPv6 addresses do allow for address-based security mechanisms, 501 including IPSEC, across end to end VPN connections. 503 13.0 IANA Considerations 505 The IANA is instructed to allocate the FC00::/7 prefix for Unique 506 Local IPv6 unicast addresses. 508 The IANA is instructed to delegate, within a reasonable time, the 509 prefix FC00::/8 to an allocation authority for Unique Local IPv6 510 Unicast prefixes of length /48. This allocation authority shall 511 comply with the requirements described in section 3.2 of this 512 document, including in particular the charging of a modest one-time 513 fee, with any profit being used for the public good in connection 514 with the Internet. 516 14.0 References 518 14.1 Normative References 520 [ADDARCH] Hinden, R., S. Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing 521 Architecture", RFC 3515, April 2003. 523 [GLOBAL] Hinden, R., S. Deering, E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global Unicast 524 Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003. 526 [IPV6] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 527 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 529 [MD5DIG] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, 530 April 1992. 532 [NTP] Mills, David L., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) 533 Specification, Implementation and Analysis", RFC 1305, 534 March 1992. 536 [POPUL] Population Reference Bureau, "World Population Data Sheet 537 of the Population Reference Bureau 2002", August 2002. 539 [RANDOM] Eastlake, D. 3rd, S. Crocker, J. Schiller, "Randomness 540 Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994. 542 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 543 3", RFC 2026, BCP00009, October 1996. 545 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 546 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP14, March 1997. 548 14.2 Informative References 550 [ADDAUTO] Thomson, S., T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address 551 Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. 553 [ADDSEL] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet 554 Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. 556 [DHCP6] Droms, R., et. al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 557 for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC3315, July 2003. 559 [RTP] Schulzrinne, H., S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson, 560 "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" 561 RFC1889, January 1996. 563 15.0 Authors' Addresses 565 Robert M. Hinden 566 Nokia 567 313 Fairchild Drive 568 Mountain View, CA 94043 569 USA 571 phone: +1 650 625-2004 572 email: bob.hinden@nokia.com 574 Brian Haberman 575 Caspian Networks 576 1 Park Drive, Suite 300 577 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 578 USA 580 phone: +1-929-949-4828 581 email: brian@innovationslab.net 583 16.0 Change Log 585 Draft 587 o Removed example of PIR as an example of an allocation authority 588 and clarified the text that the IANA should delegate the 589 centrally assigned prefix to an allocation authority. 590 o Changed sample code for generating pseudo random Global IDs to 591 not require any human input. Changes from using birthday to 592 unique token (e.g., EUI-64, serial number, etc.) available on 593 machine running the algorithm. 594 o Added a new section analyzing the uniqueness properties of the 595 pseudo random number algorithm. 596 o Added text to recommend that centrally assigned local addresses 597 be used for site planning extensive inter-site communication. 598 o Clarified that domain border routers should follow site border 599 router recommendations. 600 o Clarified that AAAA DNS records should not be installed in the 601 global DNS. 602 o Several editorial changes. 604 Draft 606 o Changed file name to become an IPv6 w.g. group document. 607 o Clarified language in Routing and Firewall sections. 608 o Several editorial changes. 610 Draft 612 o Changed title and name of addresses defined in this document to 613 "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" with abbreviation of 614 "Local IPv6 addresses". 615 o Several editorial changes. 617 Draft 619 o Added section on scope definition and updated application 620 requirement section. 621 o Clarified that, by default, the scope of these addresses is 622 global. 623 o Renumbered sections and general text improvements 624 o Removed reserved global ID values 625 o Added pseudo code for local allocation submitted by Brian 626 Haberman and added him as an author. 627 o Split Global ID values into centrally assigned and local 628 assignments and added text to describe local assignments 630 Draft 632 o Initial Draft