Network Working Group                                           H. Singh
Internet-Draft                                                 W. Beebee
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: November 8, 2008 January 11, 2009                                    E. Nordmark
                                                        Sun Microsystems
                                                             May 7,
                                                           July 10, 2008

 IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2008. January 11, 2009.


   IPv6 specifies a model of a subnet that is different than the IPv4
   subnet model.  The subtlety of the differences has resulted in
   incorrect implementations that do not interoperate.  This document
   spells out the most important difference; that an IPv6 address isn't
   automatically associated with an IPv6 on-link prefix.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Host Behavior and Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Observed Incorrect Implementation Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Appendix A.  CHANGE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 8 9

1.  Introduction

   IPv4 implementations typically associate a netmask with an address
   when an IPv4 address is assigned to an interface.  That netmask
   together with the IPv4 address designates an on-link prefix.
   Addresses that match are covered by this prefix are viewed as on-link i.e.,
   traffic to these addresses is not sent to a router.  See section
   3.3.1 in [RFC1122].  Further, note
   that implementations  Prior to the deployment of IPv4 point-to-point interfaces might not have CIDR, an associated IPv4 subnet prefix. address's
   netmask could be derived directly from the address.  In the absence
   of specifying a specific netmask when assigning a address, some
   implementations would fall back to deriving the netmask from the
   class of the address.

   The behavior of IPv6 as specified in Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] is
   quite different.  The on-link determination is separate from the
   address assignment.  A host can have IPv6 addresses without any
   related on-link prefixes or have on-link prefixes that are not
   related to any IPv6 addresses that are assigned to the host.  Any
   assigned address on an interface should initially be considered as
   having no internal structure as shown in [RFC4291].

   In IPv6, by default, a host treats only the link-local prefix as on-

   The reception of a Prefix Information Option (PIO) with the L-bit set
   [RFC4861] and a non-zero valid lifetime creates an entry (or updates
   the valid lifetime for an existing entry) in the Prefix List.  All
   the prefixes that are on the Prefix List, i.e., have not yet timed
   out, are on-link.

   In addition to the Prefix List, individual addresses are

   The on-link if
   they are definition in the target Terminology section of a Redirect Message indicating on-link, or [RFC4861]
   defines the
   source complete list of a valid Neighbor Solicitation or Neighbor Advertisement
   message.  Note cases where an address is considered on-
   link.  Note, in particular, that Redirect Messages can also indicate
   an address is off-link.  Individual address entries can be expired by
   the Neighbor Unreachability Detection mechanism.

   A host only performs address resolution for IPv6 addresses that are
   on-link.  Packets to any other address are sent to a default router.
   If there is no default router, then the node should send an ICMPv6
   Destination Unreachable indication as specified in [RFC4861] - more
   details are provided in the Host Behavior Rules section.  (Note that
   RFC 4861 changed the behavior when the Default Router List is empty.
   The behavior in the old version of Neighbor Discovery [RFC2461] was
   different when there were no default routers.)

   Failure of host implementations to correctly implement the IPv6
   subnet model can result in lack of IPv6 connectivity.  See the
   Observed Incorrect Implementation Behavior section for details.

   Host behavior is clarified in the Host Behavior Rules section.
   Finally, this document merely mainly restates and clarifies [RFC4861].

2.  Host Behavior and Rules

   A correctly implemented IPv6 host MUST adhere to the following rules:

   1.  By default only the link-local prefix is on-link.

   2.  The configuration of an IPv6 address, whether through IPv6
       stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862], DHCPv6 [RFC3315],
       or manual configuration MUST NOT imply that any implicitely cause a prefix is on-
       derived from that address to be treated as on-link.  A host is explicitly told that prefixes or addresses are
       considers a prefix to be on-link only through the means explicit means,
       such as those specified in [RFC4861]. the on-link definition in the
       Terminology section of [RFC4861] or via manual configuration.
       Note that this the requirement for manually configured addresses is
       not explicitly mentioned in [RFC4861].

   3.  On-link  If on-link determination SHOULD NOT persist persists across IPv6 interface
       initializations.  Note that section 5.7 of [RFC4862] describes
       the use
       initializations, then lack of stable storage for addresses acquired IPv6 connectivity can result.  For
       example, a host receives an RA from a router with stateless
       address autoconfiguration on-link prefix
       A. The host reboots.  During the reboot, the router sends out
       prefix A with on-link bit set and a note that zero lifetime to indicate a
       renumbering.  The host misses the Preferred and
       Valid Lifetimes must be retained if this approach is used.
       However no RFC suggests or recommends retaining renumbering.  The host comes
       online.  Then, the router sends an RA with no PIO.  The host uses
       cached on-link
       prefixes. prefix A and issues NS's instead of sending
       traffic to a default router.  The "Observed Incorrect
       Implementation Behavior" section below describes how this can
       result in lack of IPv6 connectivity.

   4.  In the absence of other sources of on-link information, including
       Redirects, if the RA advertises a prefix with the on-link(L) bit
       set and later the Valid Lifetime expires, the host MUST then
       consider addresses of the prefix to be off-link, as specified by
       the PIO paragraph of section 6.3.4 of [RFC4861].

   5.  Newer implementations, which are compliant with [RFC4861] MUST
       adhere to the following rules.  Older implementations, which are
       compliant with [RFC2461] but not [RFC4861] may remain as is.  If
       the Default Router List is empty and there is no other source of
       on-link information about any address or prefix:

       1.  The host MUST NOT assume that all destinations are on-link.

       2.  The host MUST NOT perform address resolution for non-link-
           local addresses.

       3.  Since the host cannot assume the destination is on-link, and
           off-link traffic cannot be sent to a default router (since
           the Default Router List is empty), address resolution cannot
           be performed.  This case is analogous to the behavior specified in the last paragraph
           of section 7.2.2 4 of
           [RFC4861]: [RFC4943]: when address resolution fails, there is no route to
           destination, the host SHOULD should send an ICMPv6 Destination
           Unreachable indication (for example, a locally delivered
           error message) as specified in the Terminology section of
           [RFC4861].  The specified behavior MAY be
           extended to cover this case where address resolution cannot
           be performed.

       On-link information concerning particular addresses and prefixes
       can make those specific addresses and prefixes on-link, but does
       not change the default behavior mentioned above for addresses and
       prefixes not specified.  [RFC4943] provides justification for
       these rules.

3.  Observed Incorrect Implementation Behavior

   One incorrect implementation behavior illustrates the severe
   consequences when the IPv6 subnet model is not understood by the
   implementers of several popular host operating systems.  In an access
   concentrator network ([RFC4388]), a host receives a Router
   Advertisement Message with no on-link prefix advertised.  The host
   incorrectly assumes the prefix is on-link and performs address
   resolution when the host should send all non-link-local traffic to a
   default router.  Neither the router nor any other host will respond
   to the address resolution, preventing this host from sending IPv6

4.  Conclusion

   This document clarifies and summarizes the relationship between links
   and subnet prefixes described in [RFC4861].  Configuration of an IPv6
   address does not imply the existence of corresponding on-link
   prefixes.  One should also look at API considerations for prefix
   length as described in last paragraph of section 4.2 of [RFC4903].

5.  Security Considerations

   As this

   This document merely mainly restates and clarifies [RFC4861], it [RFC4861].  It does not
   introduce any new security issues.

6.  IANA Considerations


7.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks (in alphabetical order) to Adeel Ahmed, Jari Arkko, Ralph
   Droms, Alun Evans, Dave Forster, Prashanth Krishnamurthy, Suresh
   Krishnan, Josh Littlefield, Thomas Narten, Madhu Sudan, Jinmei
   Tatuya, Dave Thaler, Bernie Volz, and Vlad Yasevich for their
   consistent input, ideas and review during the production of this

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [RFC2461]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
              Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
              December 1998.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4388]  Woundy, R. and K. Kinnear, "Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol (DHCP) Leasequery", RFC 4388, February 2006.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC4903]  Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903,
              June 2007.

   [RFC4943]  Roy, S., Durand, A., and J. Paugh, "IPv6 Neighbor
              Discovery On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful",
              RFC 4943, September 2007.



   Changes in draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-01.txt since -00.txt

   o  Changed Introduction section to remove any mention of src address
      of ND message as a means for on-link determination.  Also reworded
      first paragrpah of Introduction section.

   o  Reworded bullet 2 of section 2 and added text to clarify on-link

   o  Added text to bullet 3 of section 2 to make explicit that this is
      a new rule.

   o  Reworded bullet 5 of section 2 to clearly explain where ICMPv6
      Destination Unreachable is sent to.

Authors' Addresses

   Hemant Singh
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Ave.
   Boxborough, MA  01719

   Phone: +1 978 936 1622
   Wes Beebee
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Ave.
   Boxborough, MA  01719

   Phone: +1 978 936 2030

   Erik Nordmark
   Sun Microsystems
   17 Network Circle
   Menlo Park, CA 94025

   Phone: +1 650 786 2921

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at