draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt   draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz
Internet-Draft SRI International Internet-Draft SRI International
Intended status: Informational J. Loughney Intended status: Informational J. Loughney
Expires: September 10, 2010 Nokia Expires: January 13, 2011 Nokia
T. Narten T. Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
March 9, 2010 July 12, 2010
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt
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
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments. deployments.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and 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). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. 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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2011.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 46
5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC
4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.8. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.8. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 9 5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 9
5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 9 5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 9
5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in
IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 10 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 10
5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 10 5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 10
6. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host
6.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
- RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
6.2.2. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 7.2.1. Managed Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2.2. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed
7.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Configuration - RFC XXXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
9.2. Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.3. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.4. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.1. Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.2. Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 15 10.3. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 15 10.4. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 15 11.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 15
11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 12. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 16
12. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
14. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 16 13. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 16 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
15. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 15. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 16
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 16
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 17. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
skipping to change at page 9, line 31 skipping to change at page 8, line 31
At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide
SEND functionality. SEND functionality.
5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175
Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends
the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this
writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2 writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2
are available for future assignment. No flags have been defined that remain available for future assignment. No flags have been defined
make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is no that make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is
requirement to implement the option today. However, implementations no requirement to implement the option today. However,
that are able to pass unrecognized options to a higher level entity implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a
that may be able to understand them (e.g., a user-level process using higher level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a
a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to handle the option in user-level process using a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to
anticipation of a future usage. handle the option in anticipation of a future usage.
5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size
5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981
From [RFC2460]: From [RFC2460]:
It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of
path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6
skipping to change at page 10, line 52 skipping to change at page 9, line 52
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported. Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.
5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is
concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem
arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes
its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration [RFC 4862], the Interface Identifier Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion
portion of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. Thus,
Thus, although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its
its point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those
addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track
the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its
pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise
privacy concerns as described in [RFC 4862]. privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862].
In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases,
such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides
limited or no benefit. limited or no benefit.
5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484
The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
[RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6
nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses. nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses.
skipping to change at page 12, line 13 skipping to change at page 11, line 13
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], [RFC4607], the node support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], [RFC4607], the node
MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. In all cases, nodes are strongly MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. In all cases, nodes are strongly
encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a
single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on
the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode. the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode.
When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be
followed. followed.
6. DNS and DHCP 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration
6.1. DNS In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating
configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements and DHCP.
Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed
essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are
configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the
Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand,
DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general
parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That
said, identifying the exact line on when whether a particular option
should be configured via DHCP vs an RA option has not always been
easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define
only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than
defining multiple (different) ways of configurating the same
information.
One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same
information is that if a host choses one mechanism, but the network
operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers.
For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant
influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what
configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to
ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected
hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices
may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize
interoperability in such environments hosts may need to implement
multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability.
Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was
performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined,
but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router
Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" was placed on the
Standards Track. Consequently, DNS configuration information can now
be learned either through DHCP or through RAs. Hosts will need to
decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be implemented.
7. DNS and DHCP
7.1. DNS
DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596]. DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596].
Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need
to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality.
However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure
capability that applications rely on and generally needs to be capability that applications rely on and generally needs to be
supported. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement supported. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement
stub-resolver [RFC1034] functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, stub-resolver [RFC1034] functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1,
with support for: with support for:
skipping to change at page 12, line 37 skipping to change at page 12, line 29
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596];
- EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512
octets. octets.
Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
[RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035]. [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 [RFC3363]. Resource Records [RFC3363].
6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration
The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment 7.2.1. Managed Address Configuration
can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'M' flag set is described
in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862.
In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a
DHCP for address assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 network may provide for the configuration of addresses through RAs,
addresses and other configuration information, as described in DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration of stateless
Section 5.5.2 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for address autoconfiguraiton is more widely implemented in hosts than
address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements. address configuration through DHCP. However, some environments may
require the use of DHCP and may not support the configuration of
addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware of what operating
environment their devices will be deployed. Hosts MAY implement
address configuration via DHCP.
6.2.2. Other Configuration Information In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address
assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other
configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of
[RFC4862].
The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other 7.2.2. Other Configuration Information
configuration information can obtain other configuration information
upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the \'O' flag set is
described in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862.
Those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration IPv6 nodes use DHCP to obtain additional (non-address) configuration.
information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon If a host implementation will support applications or other protocols
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described that require configuration that is only available via DHCP, hosts
in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP SHOULD implement DHCP. For specialized devices on which no such
for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router configuration need is present, DHCP is not necessary.
Advertisements.
An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to
obtain other configuration information. obtain other configuration information.
6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 7.2.3. 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 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC XXXX
Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that
are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS
configuration was not included as an RA option and DHCP was the
recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time,
the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now
generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without
having access to a working DNS resolver. RFC 5006 was published as
an experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was
placed on the Standards Track [I-D.I-D.ietf-6man-dns-options-bis].
Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option.
8. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
7.1. Transition Mechanisms 8.1. Transition Mechanisms
7.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC
4213 4213
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213]
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
8. Mobility 9. Mobility
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776] Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776]
[RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the
Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All
communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as
expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP
includes requirements for the following types of nodes: includes requirements for the following types of nodes:
- mobile nodes - mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
skipping to change at page 14, line 21 skipping to change at page 14, line 21
and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed
an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet.
Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed-
mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555]. mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555].
More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before
any one can be recommended for broad implementation in all hosts and any one can be recommended for broad implementation in all hosts and
routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and associated routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and associated
standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this time. standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this time.
9. Security 10. 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 Note: This section needs a rethink. According to RFC4301, IKEv2 MUST
be supported. This section cites RFC 4301 as a MUST, yet the
remainder of this section only makes IKEv2 a SHOULD. The IPv6 WG has
discussed the topic of mandating key management in the past, but has
not been willing to make IKE (v1 or v2) a MUST. Is it time to
revisit this recommendation? Does it make sense to leave key
management as a SHOULD? And what about how that contradicts RFC
4301?
10.1. Basic Architecture
Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC4301] MUST be Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC4301] MUST be
supported. supported.
9.2. Security Protocols 10.2. Security Protocols
ESP [RFC4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC4302] MAY be supported. ESP [RFC4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC4302] MAY be supported.
9.3. Transforms and Algorithms 10.3. 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
HMAC-MD5-96. However, 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835] contains the current set of
mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies
algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be
promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes SHOULD conform
to the requirements in [RFC4835], as well as the requirements
specified below.
Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC2410] and the NULL
authentication algorithm [RFC4303] MUST be provided to maintain
consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However,
while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT
both be NULL. The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for
debugging.
The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC2405] SHOULD NOT be supported
within ESP. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed
in 'DESDIFF', 'DESINT', and 'DESCRACK'. DES-CBC is still listed as
required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will
be published in the near future. DES provides 56 bits of protection,
which is no longer considered sufficient.
The use of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC2404] within AH and ESP
MUST be supported. The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC2403]
within AH and ESP MAY also be supported.
The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC2451] does not suffer from the
same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm within
ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability.
The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC3602] MUST also be supported within The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for ESP and AH
ESP. AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements
efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes SHOULD conform to the
current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future. requirements in [RFC4835].
9.4. Key Management Methods 10.4. 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 [RFC4306] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include systems include IKEv2 [RFC4306] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include
key 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 11. 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 11.1. General
10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 11.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711
The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] 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
[RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). 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 11.1.2. 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 12. Network Management
Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6
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) 12.1. 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 12.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB
IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] 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) 12.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP
agent. agent.
12. Open Issues 13. Open Issues
1. Should we try and tackle the confusion related to the M and O
bits in Router Advertisements? (probably not in this document --
see previous point.)
2. Security Recommendations needs updating. Are they still correct?
And what is value of mandating IPsec if there is no key
management? Also, what is the sense of mandating IPsec for
limited-functionality devices that have a limited number of
applications, each using their own security? Relax current
requirement or leave as is?
13. Security Considerations
This document does not affect the security of the Internet, but 1. The recommendations regarding when to invoke DHCP are
implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of problematical with out being able to reference the M&0 bits.
security features to ensure security on the Internet. 'IP Security 2. Security Recommendations needs updating. See note in that
Document Roadmap' [RFC2411] is important for everyone to read. Section.
The security considerations in RFC 2460 state the following: 14. Security Considerations
The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet,
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC2401]. but implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
security features to ensure security on the Internet.
RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for Security is also discussed in Section XXX above.
the security features of IPv6.
14. Authors and Acknowledgments 15. Authors and Acknowledgments
14.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
14.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279
The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the
IPv6 Node Requirements design team: IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Jari Arkko Jari Arkko
jari.arkko@ericsson.com jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Marc Blanchet Marc Blanchet
marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca
Samita Chakrabarti Samita Chakrabarti
samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com
skipping to change at page 18, line 21 skipping to change at page 17, line 35
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. Thanks to Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to
Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to
Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs. Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.
15. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 16. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05
1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD)
still open.
2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options.
3. Added SHOULD recomendation for DNS configuration vi RAs
(RFC5006bis).
4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits.
5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section.
17. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicabity 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicabity
statement statement
2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols 2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols
3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs. added some more RFCs.
4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY) 4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY)
5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance
to recommendation to recommendation
6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs [ 6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs [
16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294 This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294
1. Section 5.1, removed "and DNAME" from the discussion about RFC- 1. Section 5.1, removed "and DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-
3363. 3363.
2. RFC 2463 references updated to RFC 4443. 2. RFC 2463 references updated to RFC 4443.
3. RFC 3513 references updated to RFC 4291. 3. RFC 3513 references updated to RFC 4291.
skipping to change at page 19, line 15 skipping to change at page 18, line 45
5. RFC 2893 references updated to RFC 4213. 5. RFC 2893 references updated to RFC 4213.
6. AH [RFC4302] support chanced from MUST to MAY. 6. AH [RFC4302] support chanced from MUST to MAY.
7. The reference for RFC 3152 has been deleted, as the RFC has been 7. The reference for RFC 3152 has been deleted, as the RFC has been
obsoleted, and has been incorporated into RFC 3596. obsoleted, and has been incorporated into RFC 3596.
8. The reference for RFC 3879 has been removed as the material from 8. The reference for RFC 3879 has been removed as the material from
RFC 3879 has been incorporated into RFC 4291. RFC 3879 has been incorporated into RFC 4291.
17. References 19. References
17.1. Normative References 19.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC2403] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
[RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[RFC2405] Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.
[RFC2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and
Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.
[RFC2411] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
[RFC2451] Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, August 1999. RFC 2671, August 1999.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999. October 1999.
skipping to change at page 20, line 35 skipping to change at page 19, line 44
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
September 2003. September 2003.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
October 2003. October 2003.
[RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
September 2003.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC3776] 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 Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
skipping to change at page 21, line 40 skipping to change at page 20, line 45
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007. September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC5006] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
RFC 5006, September 2007.
[RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over [RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over
PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
December 2007. December 2007.
17.2. Informative References 19.2. Informative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981. RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1034] 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.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
 End of changes. 54 change blocks. 
200 lines changed or deleted 204 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/