--- 1/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt 2010-07-12 23:10:26.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt 2010-07-12 23:10:26.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,67 +1,61 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz Internet-Draft SRI International Intended status: Informational J. Loughney -Expires: September 10, 2010 Nokia +Expires: January 13, 2011 Nokia T. Narten IBM Corporation - March 9, 2010 + July 12, 2010 IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis - draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-04.txt + draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt Abstract This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. 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. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- - Drafts. + Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute + working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- + Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - 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. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 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 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format @@ -87,58 +81,62 @@ 5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.8. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 9 5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 9 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 10 5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 10 - 6. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration . . . . . . . . 11 - 6.2.2. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed - Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and - Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 8. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 9. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9.1. Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9.2. Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9.3. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9.4. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 10. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 10.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 10.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 15 - 10.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 15 - - 11. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 11.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 15 - 11.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 11.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet - Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 12. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 14. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 14.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 16 - 14.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 16 - 15. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host + Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) + - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.2.1. Managed Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.2.2. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.2.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed + Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS + Configuration - RFC XXXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and + Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 10. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 10.1. Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 10.2. Security Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 10.3. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 10.4. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 11. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 11.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 11.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 15 + 11.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 15 + 12. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 12.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 16 + 12.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 12.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet + Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 13. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 15. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 16 + 15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 16 + 16. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 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 1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2. Introduction @@ -342,27 +340,27 @@ At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide SEND functionality. 5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends 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 - are available for future assignment. No flags have been defined that - make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is no - requirement to implement the option today. However, implementations - that are able to pass unrecognized options to a higher level entity - that may be able to understand them (e.g., a user-level process using - a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to handle the option in - anticipation of a future usage. + remain available for future assignment. No flags have been defined + that make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is + no requirement to implement the option today. However, + implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a + higher level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a + user-level process using a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to + handle the option in anticipation of a future usage. 5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 From [RFC2460]: It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 @@ -410,24 +408,24 @@ Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported. 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is concerned about its activity or location being tracked. The problem arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes its point of attachment to the Internet. When using Stateless - Address Autoconfiguration [RFC 4862], the Interface Identifier - portion of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. - Thus, although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes - its point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those + Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion + of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. Thus, + although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its + point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise privacy concerns as described in [RFC 4862]. In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC4941 provides limited or no benefit. 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 @@ -468,23 +466,60 @@ support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], [RFC4607], the node MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. In all cases, nodes are strongly encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode. When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be 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]. Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure capability that applications rely on and generally needs to be supported. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034] functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for: @@ -492,71 +527,83 @@ - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; - EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 octets. Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035]. Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 Resource Records [RFC3363]. -6.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 - -6.2.1. 5.2.1. Managed Address Configuration +7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 - The method by which IPv6 nodes that use DHCP for address assignment - 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. +7.2.1. Managed Address Configuration - In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 nodes that use - DHCP for address assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 - addresses and other configuration information, as described in - Section 5.5.2 of RFC 4862. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for - address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements. + DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a + network may provide for the configuration of addresses through RAs, + DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration of stateless + address autoconfiguraiton is more widely implemented in hosts than + 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 - 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. +7.2.2. Other Configuration Information - Those IPv6 nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration - information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon - 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 - for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router - Advertisements. + IPv6 nodes use DHCP to obtain additional (non-address) configuration. + If a host implementation will support applications or other protocols + that require configuration that is only available via DHCP, hosts + SHOULD implement DHCP. For specialized devices on which no such + configuration need is present, DHCP is not necessary. An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to 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) are expected to determine their default router information and on- 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. -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 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] MUST be supported. -8. Mobility +9. Mobility Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776] [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP includes requirements for the following types of nodes: - mobile nodes - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization @@ -567,164 +614,128 @@ and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed an IPv6-only environment, rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks[RFC5555]. More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before any one can be recommended for broad implementation in all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and associated 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. -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 supported. -9.2. Security Protocols +10.2. Security Protocols ESP [RFC4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC4302] MAY be supported. -9.3. 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. +10.3. Transforms and Algorithms - The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC3602] MUST also be supported within - ESP. AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and - efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the - current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future. + The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for ESP and AH + are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements + For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes SHOULD conform to the + requirements in [RFC4835]. -9.4. Key Management Methods +10.4. Key Management Methods An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the security key and SPI. The SPI configuration is needed in order to delineate between multiple keys. Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management systems include IKEv2 [RFC4306] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include key management functions. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying MUST be supported. Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG. -10. Router-Specific Functionality +11. Router-Specific Functionality This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- 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 Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP [RFC2205] or MLD [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are 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 be supported. -11. Network Management +12. Network Management Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only 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 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 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 agent. -12. 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 +13. Open Issues - This document does not affect the security of the Internet, but - implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of - security features to ensure security on the Internet. 'IP Security - Document Roadmap' [RFC2411] is important for everyone to read. + 1. The recommendations regarding when to invoke DHCP are + problematical with out being able to reference the M&0 bits. + 2. Security Recommendations needs updating. See note in that + Section. - The security considerations in RFC 2460 state the following: +14. Security Considerations - The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security - Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC2401]. + This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, + 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 - the security features of IPv6. + Security is also discussed in Section XXX above. -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 IPv6 Node Requirements design team: Jari Arkko jari.arkko@ericsson.com Marc Blanchet marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Samita Chakrabarti samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com @@ -748,38 +759,52 @@ dthaler@windows.microsoft.com Juha Wiljakka juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas 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. -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 statement 2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and added some more RFCs. 4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY) 5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance to recommendation 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 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. @@ -788,54 +813,33 @@ 5. RFC 2893 references updated to RFC 4213. 6. AH [RFC4302] 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 removed as the material from 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 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 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 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671, August 1999. [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999. @@ -855,24 +859,20 @@ Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, September 2003. [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 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 in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. @@ -909,28 +909,32 @@ "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, September 2007. [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 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 PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, December 2007. -17.2. Informative References +19.2. Informative References [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981. [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.