draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-11.txt		draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-12.txt
	Network Working Group H. Singh		Network Working Group H. Singh
	Internet-Draft W. Beebee		Internet-Draft W. Beebee
	Updates: 4861 (if approved) Cisco Systems, Inc.		Updates: 4861 (if approved) Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Intended status: Standards Track E. Nordmark		Intended status: Standards Track E. Nordmark
	Expires: October 22, 2010 Oracle, Inc.		Expires: October 29, 2010 Oracle, Inc.
	April 20, 2010		April 27, 2010
	IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes		IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes
	draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-11		draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-12
	Abstract		Abstract
	IPv6 specifies a model of a subnet that is different than the IPv4		IPv6 specifies a model of a subnet that is different than the IPv4
	subnet model. The subtlety of the differences has resulted in		subnet model. The subtlety of the differences has resulted in
	incorrect implementations that do not interoperate. This document		incorrect implementations that do not interoperate. This document
	spells out the most important difference: that an IPv6 address isn't		spells out the most important difference: that an IPv6 address isn't
	automatically associated with an IPv6 on-link prefix. This document		automatically associated with an IPv6 on-link prefix. This document
	also updates (partially due to security concerns caused by incorrect		also updates (partially due to security concerns caused by incorrect
	implementations) a part of the definition of on-link from [RFC4861].		implementations) a part of the definition of on-link from [RFC4861].
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38		skipping to change at page 1, line 38
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2010.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2010.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 10, line 37		skipping to change at page 10, line 37
	One incorrect implementation behavior illustrates the severe		One incorrect implementation behavior illustrates the severe
	consequences when the IPv6 subnet model is not understood by the		consequences when the IPv6 subnet model is not understood by the
	implementers of several popular host operating systems. In an access		implementers of several popular host operating systems. In an access
	concentrator network ([RFC4388]), a host receives a Router		concentrator network ([RFC4388]), a host receives a Router
	Advertisement Message with no on-link prefix advertised. An address		Advertisement Message with no on-link prefix advertised. An address
	could be acquired through the DHCPv6 IA_NA option (which does not		could be acquired through the DHCPv6 IA_NA option (which does not
	include a prefix length), or through manual configuration (if no		include a prefix length), or through manual configuration (if no
	prefix length is specified). The host incorrectly assumes an		prefix length is specified). The host incorrectly assumes an
	invented prefix is on-link. This invented prefix typically is a /64		invented prefix is on-link. This invented prefix typically is a /64
	that was written by the developer of the API as a "default" prefix		that was written by the developer of the operating system network
	length when a length isn't specified. This may cause the API to seem		module API to any IPv6 application as a "default" prefix length when
	to work in the case of a network interface initiating SLAAC, however		a length isn't specified. This may cause the API to seem to work in
	it can cause connectivity problems in NBMA networks. Having		the case of a network interface initiating SLAAC, however it can
	incorrectly assumed an invented prefix, the host performs address		cause connectivity problems in NBMA networks. Having incorrectly
	resolution when the host should send all non-link-local traffic to a		assumed an invented prefix, the host performs address resolution when
	default router. Neither the router nor any other host will respond		the host should send all non-link-local traffic to a default router.
	to the address resolution, preventing this host from sending IPv6		Neither the router nor any other host will respond to the address
	traffic.		resolution, preventing this host from sending IPv6 traffic.
	6. Updates to RFC 4861		6. Updates to RFC 4861
	This document deprecates the following two bullets from the on-link		This document deprecates the following two bullets from the on-link
	definition in section 2.1 of [RFC4861]:		definition in section 2.1 of [RFC4861]:
	o a Neighbor Advertisement message is received for the (target)		o a Neighbor Advertisement message is received for the (target)
	address, or		address, or
	o any Neighbor Discovery message is received from the address.		o any Neighbor Discovery message is received from the address.
End of changes. 4 change blocks.
	13 lines changed or deleted		13 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/