draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-00.txt   draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-01.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Loughney Internet Engineering Task Force J. Loughney
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track February 7, 2008 Intended status: Standards Track February 24, 2008
Expires: August 10, 2008 Expires: August 27, 2008
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-00.txt draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
skipping to change at page 2, line 33 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
5.5. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 5.5. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC
4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.6. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.6. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 8 5.6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 8
5.6.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 8 5.6.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 8
5.6.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 5.6.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in
IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 9 5.6.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 9
5.6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.7. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 9 5.7. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 9
6. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
- RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration . . . . . . . . 10 6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.2. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2.2. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1.1. Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - 7.1.1. Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers -
RFC 2893 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 RFC 2893 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Mobile IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Mobile IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.2. Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.3. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.3. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.4. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.4. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 13 10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 13 10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 13
11. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 14 11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 14
11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. Authors and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 13. Authors and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Requirements Language 1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
The goal of this document is to define the common functionality The goal of this document is to define the common functionality
required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will
implement optional or additional features, but this document implement optional or additional features, but this document
summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track
documents in one place. documents in one place.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
skipping to change at page 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
Although the document points to different specifications, it should Although the document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory. multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.
As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact
usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle:
Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others [38]. others [RFC0793].
2.1. Scope of This Document 2.1. Scope of This Document
IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be
deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore,
it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure
interoperability. interoperability.
This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
requirements specified here. requirements specified here.
2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes
From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [2], we From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460],
have the following definitions: we have the following definitions:
Description of an IPv6 Node Description of an IPv6 Node
- a device that implements IPv6. - a device that implements IPv6.
Description of an IPv6 router Description of an IPv6 router
- a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to
itself. itself.
Description of an IPv6 Host Description of an IPv6 Host
skipping to change at page 6, line 8 skipping to change at page 6, line 8
on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support
IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others. IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others.
As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major
layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete. layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.
4.1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC 2464 4.1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC 2464
Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [39]. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464].
4.2. IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 5072 4.2. IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 5072
Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP [3]. Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP
[RFC5072].
4.3. IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492 4.3. IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492
Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM
Networks [40]. Additionally, RFC 2492 states: Networks [RFC2492]. Additionally, RFC 2492 states:
A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
SHALL also support PVC mode of operation. SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.
5. IP Layer 5. IP Layer
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [2]. This The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This
specification MUST be supported. specification MUST be supported.
Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460. extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460.
The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.
Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment
headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
be supported. be supported.
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers. headers.
A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0), following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
Security Payload [2]. Security Payload [RFC2460].
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be
noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers
and possible security threats 'IPv6-RH' that they cause. and possible security threats 'IPv6-RH' that they cause.
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. [4] states: Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. [RFC4861] states:
Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP
over a particular link type) this document applies to all link over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA
links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those
services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering
the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services
described in this document that are not directly dependent on described in this document that are not directly dependent on
multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor
skipping to change at page 8, line 10 skipping to change at page 8, line 10
Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are
required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router, Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
Redirect functionality MUST be supported. Redirect functionality MUST be supported.
5.3. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 5.3. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size
5.3.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 5.3.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981
Path MTU Discovery [5] SHOULD be supported, though minimal Path MTU Discovery [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal
implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets. implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets.
The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and
reassembly. reassembly.
5.4. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 5.4. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [41] MAY be supported. IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
5.5. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 5.5. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443
ICMPv6 [6] MUST be supported. ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported.
5.6. Addressing 5.6. Addressing
5.6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 5.6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [7] MUST be supported. The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.
5.6.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 5.6.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [8]. This IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC4862].
specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts. Static This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.
address can be supported as well. Static address can be supported as well.
Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses
as described in RFC 4862 [8]. as described in RFC 4862 [RFC4862].
From 4862: From 4862:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface. them to an interface.
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported. Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.
5.6.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 5.6.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [9] SHOULD Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be configurable SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be
on a connection basis within each application when available. It is configurable on a connection basis within each application when
noted that a number of applications do not work with addresses available. It is noted that a number of applications do not work
generated with this method, while other applications work quite well with addresses generated with this method, while other applications
with them. work quite well with them.
5.6.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 5.6.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484
The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [10] The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes will [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6
need to deal with multiple addresses. nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses.
5.6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 5.6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 [11] is Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6
the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see Section 5.3 [RFC3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol;
for DHCPv6 support. see Section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support.
Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be
unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses, aside from link-local addresses, unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses, aside from link-local addresses,
when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed
address configuration) set and that contains no prefixes advertised address configuration) set and that contains no prefixes advertised
for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see Section 4.5.2). for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see Section 4.5.2).
Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration
information, such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is information, such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is
connected to a link over which the node receives a router connected to a link over which the node receives a router
advertisement in which the 'O' flag (Other stateful configuration) is advertisement in which the 'O' flag (Other stateful configuration) is
set. set.
5.7. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 5.7. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710
Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 [12]. Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
However, if the node has applications that only need support for Any- [RFC3810]. However, if the node has applications that only need
Source Multicast [42], the node MAY implement MLDv1 [13] instead. If support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement
the node has applications that need support for Source-Specific MLDv1 [RFC2710] instead. If the node has applications that need
Multicast [42], [14], the node MUST support MLDv2 [12]. support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], [RFC4607], the node
MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810].
When MLD is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the When MLD is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [15] MUST be followed. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be
followed.
6. DNS and DHCP 6. DNS and DHCP
6.1. DNS 6.1. DNS
DNS is described in [43], [16], [17], and [18]. Not all nodes will DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596].
need to resolve names; those that will never need to resolve DNS Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need
names do not need to implement resolver functionality. However, the to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality.
ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure capability that However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure
applications rely on and generally needs to be supported. All nodes capability that applications rely on and generally needs to be
that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub-resolver [43] supported. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement
functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for: stub-resolver [RFC1034] functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1,
with support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [18]; - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [18]; - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596];
- EDNS0 [19] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 octets. - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512
octets.
Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions [44], Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
[45], and [46]. [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035].
Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6
Resource Records [17]. Resource Records [RFC3363].
6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration 6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration
The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment
can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'M' flag set is described receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'M' flag set is described
in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862.
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'O' flag set is upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'O' flag set is
described in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. described in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862.
Those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration Those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration
information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described
in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP
for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router
Advertisements. Advertisements.
An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [47]) to obtain An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to
other configuration information. obtain other configuration information.
6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments
Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
are expected to determine their default router information and on- are expected to determine their default router information and on-
link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. link prefix information from received Router Advertisements.
7. IPv4 Support and Transition 7. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
7.1. Transition Mechanisms 7.1. Transition Mechanisms
7.1.1. Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 2893 7.1.1. Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 2893
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [48] MUST If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213]
be supported. MUST be supported.
8. Mobile IP 8. Mobile IP
The Mobile IPv6 [20] specification defines requirements for the The Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] specification defines requirements for the
following types of nodes: following types of nodes:
- mobile nodes - mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents - home agents
- all IPv6 routers - all IPv6 routers
Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5 Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5
of [20], including support of generic packet tunneling [21] and of [RFC3775], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC2473]
secure home agent communications [22]. and secure home agent communications [RFC3776].
Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [20]. correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [RFC3775].
Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for
all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [20]. Routers MAY all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [RFC3775]. Routers MAY
support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of
[20], including support of [21] and [22]. [RFC3775], including support of [RFC2473] and [RFC3776].
9. Security 9. Security
This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node. This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.
9.1. Basic Architecture 9.1. Basic Architecture
Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [23] MUST be Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC4301] MUST be
supported. supported.
9.2. Security Protocols 9.2. Security Protocols
ESP [24] MUST be supported. AH [25] MAY be supported. ESP [RFC4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC4302] MAY be supported.
9.3. Transforms and Algorithms 9.3. Transforms and Algorithms
Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms
for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and
HMAC-MD5-96. However, 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation HMAC-MD5-96. However, 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements For ESP and AH' [26] contains the current set of Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835] contains the current set of
mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies
algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be
promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes SHOULD conform promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes SHOULD conform
to the requirements in [26], as well as the requirements specified to the requirements in [RFC4835], as well as the requirements
below. specified below.
Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
for the NULL encryption algorithm [27] and the NULL authentication for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC2410] and the NULL
algorithm [24] MUST be provided to maintain consistency with the way authentication algorithm [RFC4303] MUST be provided to maintain
these services are negotiated. However, while authentication and consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However,
encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT both be NULL. The NULL while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT
encryption algorithm is also useful for debugging. both be NULL. The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for
debugging.
The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [28] SHOULD NOT be supported within The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC2405] SHOULD NOT be supported
ESP. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed in within ESP. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed
'DESDIFF', 'DESINT', and 'DESCRACK'. DES-CBC is still listed as in 'DESDIFF', 'DESINT', and 'DESCRACK'. DES-CBC is still listed as
required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will
be published in the near future. DES provides 56 bits of protection, be published in the near future. DES provides 56 bits of protection,
which is no longer considered sufficient. which is no longer considered sufficient.
The use of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [29] within AH and ESP MUST be The use of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC2404] within AH and ESP
supported. The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [30] within AH and MUST be supported. The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC2403]
ESP MAY also be supported. within AH and ESP MAY also be supported.
The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [31] does not suffer from the same The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC2451] does not suffer from the
security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm within ESP same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm within
MUST be supported to ensure interoperability. ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability.
The AES-128-CBC algorithm [32] MUST also be supported within ESP. The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC3602] MUST also be supported within
AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and efficient ESP. AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and
algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the current IPsec efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the
RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future. current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future.
9.4. Key Management Methods 9.4. Key Management Methods
An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the
security key and SPI. The SPI configuration is needed in order to security key and SPI. The SPI configuration is needed in order to
delineate between multiple keys. delineate between multiple keys.
Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management
systems include IKEv2 [49] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include key systems include IKEv2 [RFC4306] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include
management functions. key management functions.
Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand
creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on
by the MSEC WG. by the MSEC WG.
10. Router-Specific Functionality 10. Router-Specific Functionality
This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing-
specific requirements. specific requirements.
10.1. General 10.1. General
10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711
The IPv6 Router Alert Option [33] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP
[50] or MLD [13]). The Router Alert option will need to be [RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be
implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are
implemented. See Section 4.6. implemented. See Section 4.6.
10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
be supported. be supported.
11. Network Management 11. Network Management
skipping to change at page 14, line 12 skipping to change at page 14, line 14
nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
possible way of controlling these nodes. possible way of controlling these nodes.
11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)
The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent. SNMP agent.
11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB
IP Forwarding Table MIB [34] SHOULD be supported by nodes that IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that
support an SNMP agent. support an SNMP agent.
11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
IP MIB [35] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent. IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP
agent.
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
This document does not affect the security of the Internet, but This document does not affect the security of the Internet, but
implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
security features to ensure security on the Internet. 'IP Security security features to ensure security on the Internet. 'IP Security
Document Roadmap' [36] is important for everyone to read. Document Roadmap' [RFC2411] is important for everyone to read.
The security considerations in RFC 2460 state the following: The security considerations in RFC 2460 state the following:
The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [37]. Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC2401].
RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for
the security features of IPv6. the security features of IPv6.
13. Authors and Acknowledgements 13. Authors and Acknowledgements
This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team: This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Jari Arkko Jari Arkko
jari.arkko@ericsson.com jari.arkko@ericsson.com
skipping to change at page 15, line 24 skipping to change at page 15, line 28
raraghun@cisco.com raraghun@cisco.com
Shoichi Sakane Shoichi Sakane
shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com
Dave Thaler Dave Thaler
dthaler@windows.microsoft.com dthaler@windows.microsoft.com
Juha Wiljakka Juha Wiljakka
juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to
Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to
Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.
14. References 14. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
14.1. Normative References This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294
[16] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 1. Section 5.1, removed "and DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-
3363.
2. RFC 2463 references updated to RFC 4443.
3. RFC 3513 references updated to RFC 4291.
4. RFC 3152 refrrences updated to RFC 3596.
5. RFC 2893 references updated to RFC 4213.
6. AH [RFC-4302] support chanced from MUST to MAY.
7. The reference for RFC 3152 has been deleted, as the RFC has been
obsoleted, and has been incorporated into RFC 3596.
8. The reference for RFC 3879 has been reomved as the material from
RFC 3879 has been incorporated into RFC 4291.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[5] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[37] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the [RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[30] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within ESP and [RFC2403] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within
AH", RFC 2403, November 1998. ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
[29] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP [RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[28] Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm [RFC2405] Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998. Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.
[27] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and Its [RFC2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and
Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998. Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.
[36] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security Document [RFC2411] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998. Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
[31] Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms", [RFC2451] Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
RFC 2451, November 1998. Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.
[2] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[21] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[19] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671, [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
August 1999. RFC 2671, August 1999.
[13] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast Listener [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999. Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
[33] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, October 1999. RFC 2711, October 1999.
[11] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
(DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[17] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. Hain, [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
"Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
August 2002.
[10] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[15] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, September 2003. Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
September 2003.
[18] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, "DNS [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003. "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
October 2003.
[32] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher [RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003. Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
September 2003.
[20] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[22] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and Home Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[12] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
(MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[7] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[34] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, April 2006. [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
April 2006.
[35] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.
[23] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet [RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the
Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.
[25] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December 2005. [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[24] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005. December 2005.
[6] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) RFC 4303, December 2005.
Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[14] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
RFC 4607, August 2006. Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[26] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
[RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007. Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.
[4] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007. September 2007.
[8] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[9] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 4941, Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
September 2007. IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[3] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", [RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over
RFC 5072, September 2007. PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007.
14.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[38] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
September 1981. RFC 793, September 1981.
[43] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[50] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
"Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[39] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[40] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.
[41] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, August 1999. RFC 2675, August 1999.
[42] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
(SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
[47] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
[44] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
March 2005. RFC 4033, March 2005.
[45] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
"Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
March 2005. RFC 4034, March 2005.
[46] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
"Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
RFC 4035, March 2005. Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[48] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[49] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", [RFC4306] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
RFC 4306, December 2005. RFC 4306, December 2005.
Author's Address Author's Address
John Loughney John Loughney
Nokia Nokia
955 Page Mill Road 955 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto 94303 Palo Alto 94303
USA USA
 End of changes. 106 change blocks. 
199 lines changed or deleted 239 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/