draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-06.txt   draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz
Internet-Draft SRI International Internet-Draft SRI International, Inc.
Intended status: Informational J. Loughney Intended status: Informational J. Loughney
Expires: April 29, 2011 Nokia Expires: June 19, 2011 Nokia
T. Narten T. Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
October 26, 2010 December 16, 2010
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-06.txt draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.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
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 40 skipping to change at page 2, line 40
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 8 5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 8
5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 9 5.4. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 9
5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.5. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.5.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 . 10
5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 5.8.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in
IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 10 5.8.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 11
5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 11 5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 . . 11
6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
- RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration - RFC XXXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 14
10.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 16 12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 16 12.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 16 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 16
12.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 17
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
15. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 17 16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 17 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 17
16. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 17
17. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 17. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
18. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 18. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
19. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
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
The goal of this document is to define the common functionality The goal of this document is to define the common functionality
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 4, line 43
This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a
device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range
of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range
of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this
document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is
perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to
define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific
usage and deployment environments. For example, this document does usage and deployment environments. For example, this document does
not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some some deployment not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some some deployment
scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. As one scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For
specific example, the USGv6 [USGv6] profile includes speciallized example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for
requirements for its target environment. specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments [DODv6] and
[USGv6].
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 [RFC0793]. others [RFC0793].
2.1. Scope of This Document 2.1. Scope of This Document
skipping to change at page 7, line 17 skipping to change at page 7, line 17
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. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in
[RFC5722].
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 [RFC2460]. Security Payload [RFC2460].
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is
Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to Routing Header type 0 (RH0) which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to
security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized security concerns, and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized
routing type. routing type.
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. [RFC4861] states: Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861] and was updated by
[RFC5942]. 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 16 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link. that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
Hosts MUST support Prefix discovery. Hosts MUST support Prefix discovery.
Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for
all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. NUD is not required all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. NUD is not required
for paths between routers. However, all nodes MUST respond to for paths between routers. However, all nodes MUST respond to
unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages. unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages.
Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the
recieving of Router Advertisements. The ability to understand receiving of Router Advertisements. The ability to understand
individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting
the functionality making use of the particular option. the functionality making use of the particular option.
All nodes MUST support the Sending and Receiving of Neighbor All nodes MUST support the Sending and Receiving of Neighbor
Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and
NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality. Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality.
Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily
for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting). Redirects for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting). Redirects
are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks
dominated by routers, redirects are typically disabled. The sending dominated by routers, redirects are typically disabled. The sending
of redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They of redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They
MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on
edge networks. edge networks.
"IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional
recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
RFC 4311 SHOULD be supported.
5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 5.3. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971
SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA)
[RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor
Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4 Discovery. SEND is a new technology, in that it has no IPv4
counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain counterpart but it has significant potential to address certain
classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some classes of spoofing attacks. While there have been some
implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment
experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF experience to date in using the technology. In addition, the IETF
working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on
skipping to change at page 9, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 33
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
implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit
implementation of Path MTU Discovery. implementation of Path MTU Discovery.
The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet
reassembly. fragmentation and reassembly.
5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 5.6. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 5.7. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443
ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported.
5.8. Addressing 5.8. Addressing
5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 5.8.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.
5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 5.8.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862
Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as
skipping to change at page 10, line 26 skipping to change at page 10, line 31
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.
All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from
Section 5.4 of RFC 4862: Section 5.4 of RFC 4862:
Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast
addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of
whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration, whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration,
DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following exceptions: DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions
noted therein].
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 [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion
of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. Thus, of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique. Thus,
skipping to change at page 10, line 52 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862]. 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. IPv6 nodes will need to deal [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented. IPv6 nodes will need to deal
with multiple addresses configured simultaneously, . with multiple addresses configured simultaneously.
5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 5.8.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a
network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router
Advertisements, DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration Advertisements, DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration
of stateless address autoconfiguraiton is more widely implemented in of stateless address autoconfiguraiton is more widely implemented in
hosts than address configuration through DHCP. However, some hosts than address configuration through DHCP. However, some
environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the
configuration of addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware configuration of addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware
skipping to change at page 11, line 25 skipping to change at page 11, line 31
MAY implement address configuration via DHCP. MAY implement address configuration via DHCP.
In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address
assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other
configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of
[RFC4862]. [RFC4862].
5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 5.9. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710
Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1
[RFC3590]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive [RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive
and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used
on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and
requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses.
Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement MLDv2
[RFC3810]. However, if the node has applications that only need [RFC3810]. Specifically, if the node has applications that need
support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], the node MUST
MLDv1 [RFC2710] instead. If the node has applications that need support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], [RFC4604] and [RFC4607]. If
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], [RFC4607], the node the node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast
MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. In all cases, nodes are strongly (i.e, they do not use source-specific multicast), implementing MLDv1
encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a [RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, nodes are strongly encouraged
single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a single
the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode. 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 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. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration
In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating
configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements and DHCP. configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements and DHCP.
Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed
essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are
configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the
Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand,
DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general
parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That
said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option
should be configured via DHCP vs. an RA option has not always been should be configured via DHCP vs. an RA option has not always been
easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define
only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than
defining multiple (different) ways of configurating the same defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same
information. information.
One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same
information is that if a host choses one mechanism, but the network information is that if a host chooses one mechanism, but the network
operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers. operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers.
For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant
influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what
configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to
ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected
hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices
may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize
interoperability in such environments hosts may need to implement interoperability in such environments hosts may need to implement
multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability.
Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was Originally in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was
performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined, performed exclusively via DHCP. In 2007, an RA option was defined,
but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router but was published as Experimental [RFC5006]. In 2010, "IPv6 Router
Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" was placed on the Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published
Standards Track. Consequently, DNS configuration information can now as a Standards Track Document. Consequently, DNS configuration
be learned either through DHCP or through RAs. Hosts will need to information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs.
decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be implemented. Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be
implemented.
7. DNS and DHCP 7. DNS and DHCP
7.1. DNS 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 most nodes will need to
supported. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034]
stub-resolver [RFC1034] functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for:
with support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];
- 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].
7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
7.2.1. Other Configuration Information 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information
IPv6 nodes use DHCP to obtain address configuration information (See IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration
Section 5.8.5) and to obtain additional (non-address) configuration. information (See Section 5.8.5) and to obtain additional (non-
If a host implementation supports applications or other protocols address) configuration. If a host implementation supports
that require configuration that is only available via DHCP, hosts applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
SHOULD implement DHCP. For specialized devices on which no such only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For
configuration need is present, DHCP may not be necessary. specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present,
DHCP may not be necessary.
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.
7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 7.2.2. 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.
7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC XXXX 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106
Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that
are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS
configuration was not included as an RA option and DHCP was the configuration was not included as an RA option and DHCP was the
recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time, recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time,
the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now
generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without
having access to a working DNS resolver. RFC 5006 was published as having access to a working DNS resolver. RFC 5006 was published as
an experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was 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]. placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106].
Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option. Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106].
8. IPv4 Support and Transition 8. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
8.1. Transition Mechanisms 8.1. Transition Mechanisms
8.1.1. 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.
9. Mobility 9. Application Support
9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952
Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in
text form SHOULD suppport "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
Representation" [RFC5952].
10. 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 38 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
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.
10. Security 11. Security
This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes.
Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational
procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate
management approaches, etc. are all components that impact the level management approaches, etc. are all components that impact the level
of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly, of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly,
deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can
significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular
security approach. security approach.
skipping to change at page 15, line 24 skipping to change at page 15, line 38
ideal technology for all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is ideal technology for all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is
not viewed as the ideal security technology in all cases and is not viewed as the ideal security technology in all cases and is
unlikely to displace the others. unlikely to displace the others.
Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the
key management approach of IKE. This document updates that key management approach of IKE. This document updates that
recommendation by making support of the IP Security Architecture [RFC recommendation by making support of the IP Security Architecture [RFC
4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture
requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both
manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated
key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996].
This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types
and environments where other approaches to security than IPsec can be and environments where other approaches to security than IPsec can be
justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a
very limited number or type of applications and an application- very limited number or type of applications and an application-
specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management
or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices my run on or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices my run on
extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full IP extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full IP
Security Architecture is not justified. Security Architecture is not justified.
10.1. Requirements 11.1. Requirements
"Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be
supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture
requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both requires (e.g., Sec. 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both
manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated
key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required in
[RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST
implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302].
10.2. Transforms and Algorithms 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms
The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IP The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IP
Security Architcture are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm Security Architecture are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm
Implementation Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes Implementation Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes
implementing the IP Security Architecture MUST conform to the implementing the IP Security Architecture MUST conform to the
requirements in [RFC4835]. Preferred cryptographic algorithms often requirements in [RFC4835]. Preferred cryptographic algorithms often
change more frequently than security protocols. Therefore change more frequently than security protocols. Therefore
implementations MUST allow for migration in new algorithms, as implementations MUST allow for migration to new algorithms, as
RFC4835 is replaced or updated in the future. RFC4835 is replaced or updated in the future.
11. Router-Specific Functionality The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are
defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key
Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)' [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2
MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future
updates or replacements to [RFC4307].
12. 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.
11.1. General 12.1. General
11.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 12.1.1. 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 (e.g., MLD) are
implemented. See Section 5.8.5. implemented. See Section 5.9.
11.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 12.1.2. 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.
12. Network Management Section 7 of RFC 3775 includes some mobility-specific extensions to
Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5,
even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality.
13. 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.
12.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 13.1. 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.
12.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 13.1.1. 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.
12.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 13.1.2. 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.
13. Open Issues
1. None?
14. Security Considerations 14. Security Considerations
This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet,
beyond the security considerations associated with the individual beyond the security considerations associated with the individual
protocols. protocols.
Security is also discussed in Section 10 above. Security is also discussed in Section 10 above.
15. Authors and Acknowledgments 15. IANA Considerations
15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) This document has no requests for IANA.
15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 16. Authors and Acknowledgments
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
To be filled out.
16.2. 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 16 skipping to change at page 18, line 38
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.
16. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 17. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07
1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5
of RFC 3775.
2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC
6106) has been published.
3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation.
4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added
as a MAY.
5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942).
6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented
7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement.
18. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06
1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed 1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed
by 6man and saag. by 6man and saag.
2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies 2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies
to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in
their requirements their requirements
3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular. 3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular.
Text made more crisp. Text made more crisp.
4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address 4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address
discussion to Section 5.8.5. discussion to Section 5.8.5.
5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t. 5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t.
default configuration setting. default configuration setting.
17. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 19. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05
1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD) 1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD)
still open. still open.
2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options. 2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options.
3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs 3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs
(RFC5006bis). (RFC5006bis).
4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits. 4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits.
5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section. 5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section.
18. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 20. 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 applicability
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 [
19. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 21. 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 45 skipping to change at page 20, line 35
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.
20. References 22. References
20.1. Normative References 22.1. Normative References
[DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6
Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0",
July 2010,
<http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_50.pdf>.
[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.
skipping to change at page 21, line 17 skipping to change at page 22, line 14
[RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
April 2006. April 2006.
[RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the [RFC4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006. Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.
[RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307,
December 2005. December 2005.
[RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
[RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation [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.
[RFC4861] 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.
skipping to change at page 22, line 5 skipping to change at page 23, line 13
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration", "IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
RFC 5006, September 2007. 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.
20.2. Informative References [RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
RFC 5722, December 2009.
[RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 5996, September 2010.
[RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 6106, November 2010.
[USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile
for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008,
<http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/usgv6-v1.pdf>.
22.2. 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.
skipping to change at page 23, line 15 skipping to change at page 24, line 45
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005. RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005.
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of [RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of
IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets
over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006. over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, January 2006.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
February 2006. February 2006.
[RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877,
April 2007. April 2007.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
April 2007.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
[RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
February 2008. February 2008.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ed Jankiewicz Ed Jankiewicz
SRI International SRI International, Inc.
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 1161 Broad Street - Suite 212
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
USA USA
Phone: Phone: 732-389-1003
Email: ed.jankiewicz@sri.com Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com
John Loughney John Loughney
Nokia Nokia
955 Page Mill Road 955 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto 94303 Palo Alto 94303
USA USA
Phone: +1 650 283 8068 Phone: +1 650 283 8068
Email: john.loughney@nokia.com Email: john.loughney@nokia.com
Thomas Narten Thomas Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Ave. 3039 Cornwallis Ave.
PO Box 12195 PO Box 12195
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
USA USA
Phone: +1 919 254 7798 Phone: +1 919 254 7798
Email: narten@us.ibm.com Email: narten@us.ibm.com
 End of changes. 67 change blocks. 
114 lines changed or deleted 213 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/