draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08.txt   draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz
Internet-Draft SRI International, Inc. Internet-Draft SRI International, Inc.
Intended status: Informational J. Loughney Obsoletes: 4294 (if approved) J. Loughney
Expires: September 12, 2011 Nokia Intended status: Informational Nokia
T. Narten Expires: October 28, 2011 T. Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
March 11, 2011 April 26, 2011
IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-08.txt draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.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.
This document obsoletes RFC4294.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). 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 September 12, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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 22 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes -
RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 8 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 9
5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 9 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 10
5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC
4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 10 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 11
5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 10 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 11
5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in 5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in
IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 11 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 12
5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 11 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 13
6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host 6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
- RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 14 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 16
9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 17 12.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 17 12.1.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . 19
13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 18 13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 19
13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 18 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 20
16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 19 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 20
17. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 17. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
18. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 18. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
19. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
20. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
21. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 21. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
22. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
23. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 23. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
23.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 24. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
23.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 24.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 24.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
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 This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6
required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or
implement optional or additional features, but this document collects additional features, but this document collects and summarizes
and summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one
documents in one place. place.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an
Applicability Statement and provide guidance as to which IPv6 Applicability Statement and provide guidance as to which IPv6
specifications should be implemented in the general case, and which specifications should be implemented in the general case, and which
specification may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios. specification may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios.
This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs. This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs.
Although the document points to different specifications, it should Although the document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 5, line 42
implementations will be focused on only one of those roles. implementations will be focused on only one of those roles.
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 deployment
scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For
example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for
specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments [DODv6] and specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments [DODv6] and
[USGv6]. [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
skipping to change at page 8, line 41 skipping to change at page 9, line 41
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 "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional
recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers. recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
RFC 4311 SHOULD be supported. RFC 4311 SHOULD be supported.
5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
"Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC5942] "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks
each advertising its own default route(s). Nodes (routers or hosts) each advertising its own default route(s). Nodes (routers or hosts)
MAY wish to implement this functionality. MAY wish to implement this functionality.
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 5.4. 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 43 skipping to change at page 10, line 43
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 [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet
fragmentation and reassembly. fragmentation and reassembly.
One operational issue with Path MTU discovery occurs when firewalls
block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU discovery relies on
such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully
sent. Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery [RFC4821] avoids having
a dependency on Packet Too Big messages.
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443
ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported. Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported.
5.9. Addressing 5.9. Addressing
skipping to change at page 12, line 8 skipping to change at page 13, line 18
[RFC4862]. [RFC4862].
5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1
[RFC2710]. 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 also implement MLDv2 MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting
[RFC3810]. Specifically, if the node has applications that need Source-Specific Multicast. The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810]
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], the node MUST supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of
support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], [RFC4604] and [RFC4607]. If "filter modes". Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a
the node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast multicast group along with a list of senders for that group it wishes
to receive traffic from. Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node indicates a
multicast group along with a list of senders it wishes to exclude
receiving traffic from. In practice, operations to block source(s)
using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used, but add considerable
implementation complexity to MLDv2. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] is a
simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification that omits
EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s).
Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2
[RFC5790]. Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source-
Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE
functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810],
[RFC4604] and [RFC4607]. Nodes supporting applications that expect
to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as
Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support MLDv2 as
defined in [RFC5790].
If a node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast
(i.e, they do not use source-specific multicast), implementing MLDv1 (i.e, they do not use source-specific multicast), implementing MLDv1
[RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, nodes are strongly encouraged [RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, however, nodes are strongly
to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a single encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1,
MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on the link as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that
operate in version 1 compatibility mode. 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
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 16, line 31
Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in
text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
Representation" [RFC5952]. Representation" [RFC5952].
9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) 9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs)
There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not
mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly
relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementors, however, relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementors, however,
would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing
exising APIs for the type of functionality they provide to existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to
applications. applications.
"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6 "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6
functionality used by typical applications. Implementors should note functionality used by typical applications. Implementors should note
that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by POSIX that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by POSIX
[POSIX]. [POSIX].
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6" "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6"
[RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by
diagnostic and other more specialized applications. diagnostic and other more specialized applications.
"IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides
facilities that allow an application to override the default Source facilities that allow an application to override the default Source
Address Selection rules of [RFC2434]. Address Selection rules of [RFC3484].
"Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678] "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678]
provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group
memberships. memberships.
"Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides
application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 features. application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 features.
[RFC3775] [RFC3775]
10. Mobility 10. Mobility
skipping to change at page 15, line 49 skipping to change at page 17, line 28
- home agents - home agents
- all IPv6 routers - all IPv6 routers
At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation
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 specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in
routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and associated all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and
standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this time. associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this
time.
11. 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
skipping to change at page 18, line 42 skipping to change at page 20, line 22
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. IANA Considerations 15. IANA Considerations
This document has no requests for IANA. This document has no requests for IANA.
16. Authors and Acknowledgments 16. Authors and Acknowledgments
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
To be filled out. For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors
would like to thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown,
Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron
Sheffer and Dave Thaler for their comments.
16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 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
skipping to change at page 19, line 43 skipping to change at page 21, line 27
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.
17. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 17. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09
1. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
[RFC5790]
18. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08
1. Dropped reference to "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains 1. Dropped reference to "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains
without Explicit Tunnels" [RFC2429] in favor of a reference to without Explicit Tunnels" [RFC2429] in favor of a reference to
tunneling via Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms (RFC4313). tunneling via Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms (RFC4313).
2. Added reference to "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific 2. Added reference to "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific
Routes" [RFC5942] as a MAY. Routes" [RFC4191] as a MAY.
3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6" (RFC4429). for IPv6" (RFC4429).
4. Added reference to RFC4941 ""Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" 4. Added reference to RFC4941 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers"
5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and node are 5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and none are
required. required.
6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented SHOULD be implemented
7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement. MUST to implement.
8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD. [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
18. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 19. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07
1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5
of RFC 3775. of RFC 3775.
2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC 2. "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" (RFC
6106) has been published. 6106) has been published.
3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation. 3. Further clarifications to the MLD recommendation.
4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added 4. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] added
as a MAY. as a MAY.
5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 5. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942).
6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 6. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented SHOULD be implemented
7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 7. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement. MUST to implement.
8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD. [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
19. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 20. 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.
20. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 21. 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.
21. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 22. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability 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
to recommendation
6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs [
22. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the
changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
list of all changes.
This appendix keeps track of the chances from RFC 4294
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability
statement and that this document is aimed at general nodes.
2. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding
references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAY.
3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs.
4. Added Section on SEND (made 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. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 Section, downgrading overall
recommendation to a SHOULD.
7. Added background section on DHCP vs RA options, added SHOULD
recommendation sfor DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106), cleaned up
DHCP recommendations
8. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5
of RFC 3775.
9. Clarified recommendations on MLD. 23. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
1. There have been many editorial clarifications as well as
significant additions and updates. While this section
highlights some of the changes, readers should not rely on this
section for a comprehensive list of all changes.
2. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an
applicability statement and that this document is aimed at
general nodes.
3. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding
references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAY.
4. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs.
5. Added Section on SEND (it is a MAY)
6. Revised Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more
nuance to recommendation.
7. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 Section, downgrading overall
recommendation to a SHOULD.
8. Added background section on DHCP vs RA options, added SHOULD
recommendation sfor DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106),
cleaned up DHCP recommendations
9. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5
of RFC 3775.
10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942). 10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942).
11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] 11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented SHOULD be implemented
12. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 12. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement. MUST to implement.
13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD. [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
14. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363. 14. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363.
15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents, 15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
including 4443, 4291, 3596, 4213. including 4443, 4291, 3596, 4213.
16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There 16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There
is no consensus at present on how to process these flags and is no consensus at present on how to process these flags and
discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent update discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (RFC 4862). update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (RFC 4862).
17. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents. 18. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" 19. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
[RFC5952] a SHOULD. MUST to implement.
20. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a MUST to [RFC5790]
implement.
23. References
23.1. Normative References 24. References
[DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6 24.1. Normative References
Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0",
July 2010,
<http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_50.pdf>.
[POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
ISO/IEC 9945:2002", December 2001,
<http://www.opengroup.org/austin>.
[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.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, August 1999. RFC 2671, August 1999.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999. October 1999.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, October 1999. RFC 2711, October 1999.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
August 2002.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003.
[RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
September 2003. September 2003.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
October 2003. October 2003.
[RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678, (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
January 2004.
[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 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[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
skipping to change at page 25, line 12 skipping to change at page 26, line 8
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005. RFC 4303, December 2005.
[RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the [RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307,
December 2005. December 2005.
[RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load [RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005. Sharing", RFC 4311, November 2005.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006.
[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.
[RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API
for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, July 2006.
[RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source- Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006. 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
skipping to change at page 25, line 45 skipping to change at page 26, line 35
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007. September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC5006] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
RFC 5006, September 2007.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
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 [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.
[RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers", [RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 5453, February 2009. RFC 5453, February 2009.
[RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments", [RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
RFC 5722, December 2009. RFC 5722, December 2009.
[RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
February 2010.
[RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010. Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 5996, September 2010. RFC 5996, September 2010.
[RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 6106, November 2010. RFC 6106, November 2010.
[USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile 24.2. Informative References
for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008,
<http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/usgv6-v1.pdf>.
23.2. Informative 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>.
[POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information
Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX),
ISO/IEC 9945:2002", December 2001,
<http://www.opengroup.org/austin>.
[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",
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.
[RFC2429] Bormann, C., Cline, L., Deisher, G., Gardos, T., Maciocco,
C., Newell, D., Ott, J., Sullivan, G., Wenger, S., and C.
Zhu, "RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T
Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)", RFC 2429, October 1998.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.
[RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.
[RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of [RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
RFC 2590, May 1999. RFC 2590, May 1999.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, August 1999. RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets [RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001. over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, October 2001.
[RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
August 2002.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003.
[RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
January 2004.
[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.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, March 2005. RFC 3972, March 2005.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005. 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.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006.
[RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API
for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, July 2006.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[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, [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
April 2007. 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.
[RFC5006] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
RFC 5006, September 2007.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
September 2007.
[RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over
PPP", RFC 5072, 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.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ed Jankiewicz Ed Jankiewicz
SRI International, Inc. SRI International, Inc.
1161 Broad Street - Suite 212 1161 Broad Street - Suite 212
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
USA USA
Phone: 443-502-5815 Phone: 443-502-5815
Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com
 End of changes. 80 change blocks. 
263 lines changed or deleted 274 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/