draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt   rfc6434.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force E. Jankiewicz Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Jankiewicz
Internet-Draft SRI International, Inc. Request for Comments: 6434 SRI International, Inc.
Obsoletes: 4294 (if approved) J. Loughney Obsoletes: 4294 J. Loughney
Intended status: Informational Nokia Category: Informational Nokia
Expires: December 2, 2011 T. Narten ISSN: 2070-1721 T. Narten
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
May 31, 2011 December 2011
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.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. This document obsoletes RFC 4294.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute published for informational purposes.
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 2, 2011. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434.
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 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 8 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 10 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 9
5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 10 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 9
5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC
4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 11 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 11
5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 11 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 IPv6 - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 12 5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . . 12
5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC
3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 13 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 13
6. DHCP vs. Router Advertisement Options for Host 6. DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
- RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 15 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 16 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . . 16
9.2. Application Program Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . 16
10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . . 19 12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . . 19
13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) . . . . . . . . 20 13.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . . 20
13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 15. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 21
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . . 21 15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 21
16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 . . . . . . . . 21 16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
17. Appendix: Changes from One ID version to Another . . . . . . . 22 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17.1. Appendix: Changes from -10to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17.2. Appendix: Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
17.3. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
17.4. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
17.5. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17.6. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17.7. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17.8. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6 This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6
hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or
additional features, but this document collects and summarizes additional features, but this document collects and summarizes
requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one requirements from other published Standards Track 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 to 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. specifications 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 this 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
requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many
specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may
not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both
client and server behavior in the same specification, while many client and server behavior in the same specification, while many
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 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 (see [DODv6]
[USGv6]. 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 1.1. Scope of This Document
IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be
deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore,
it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure it is important to develop requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure
interoperability. interoperability.
This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
requirements specified here. requirements specified here.
2.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes
From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460], From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460],
we have the following definitions: we have the following definitions:
Description of an IPv6 Node IPv6 node - a device that implements IPv6.
- a device that implements IPv6.
Description of an IPv6 router IPv6 router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly
addressed to itself.
- a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to IPv6 host - any node that is not a router.
itself.
Description of an IPv6 Host 2. Requirements Language
- any node that is not a router. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
AH Authentication Header
DAD Duplicate Address Detection AH Authentication Header
ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol DAD Duplicate Address Detection
IKE Internet Key Exchange
MIB Management Information Base ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
MLD Multicast Listener Discovery
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
NA Neighbor Advertisement
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access IKE Internet Key Exchange
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation MIB Management Information Base
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol MLD Multicast Listener Discovery
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit MTU Maximum Transmission Unit
NA Neighbor Advertisement
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
4. Sub-IP Layer 4. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation
should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the
hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant
IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on
others. others.
As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the
link-layers for which an IPv6 specification has been developed. It layer 2 technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been
is provided for information purposes only, and may not be complete. developed. It is provided for informational purposes only and may
not be complete.
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464] - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]
- IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification [RFC2590] Specification [RFC2590]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146] - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146]
- Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) - Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338] Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]
- Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE - Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE
802.16 Networks [RFC5121] 802.16 Networks [RFC5121]
- IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]
- IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]
In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible
to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include:
- Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address
Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]
- Section 3 of "Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms" [RFC4213]
- Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers" [RFC4213]
5. IP Layer 5. IP Layer
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This
specification MUST be supported. specification MUST be supported.
Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
described in RFC 2460. 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.
skipping to change at page 8, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
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. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in
[RFC5722]. [RFC5722].
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers. headers.
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.
All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label
field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437].
Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. It is
RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow label by setting the
Flow Label field for all packets of a given flow to the same value
chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861] and was updated by Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861]; the definition was
[RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC4861 states: updated by [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC
4861 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., Non-
links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or
services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering mechanisms to implement those services will be specified (in the
the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services appropriate document covering the operation of IP over a
described in this document that are not directly dependent on particular link type). The services described in this document
multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor that are not directly dependent on multicast, such as Redirects,
Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as next-hop determination, Neighbor Unreachability Detection, etc.,
specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on are expected to be provided as specified in this document. The
NBMA links is an area for further study. details of how one uses ND on NBMA links are addressed in
[RFC2491].
Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows: Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:
Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality. attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality.
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
receiving 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 "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. [RFC4311] 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" [RFC4191] "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 providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide
connectivity to destinations the other router does not and choosing connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In
such cases, RFC4191 can help. such cases, RFC 4191 can help.
Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers
adhering to [RFC6204], use [RFC4191] to advertise routes to certain adhering to [RFC6204] use RFC 4191 to advertise routes to certain
local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in
SOHO environments SHOULD implement [RFC4191]. SOHO environments SHOULD implement RFC 4191.
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
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
additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for
deployment. deployment.
At this time, SEND is considered optional and IPv6 nodes MAY provide At this time, SEND is considered optional, and IPv6 nodes MAY provide
SEND functionality. SEND functionality.
5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175
Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends
the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this
writing, 6 of the original 8 bit flags have been assigned, while 2 writing, 6 of the original 8 single-bit flags have been assigned,
remain available for future assignment. No flags have been defined while 2 remain available for future assignment. No flags have been
that make use of the new option, and thus strictly speaking, there is defined that make use of the new option, and thus, strictly speaking,
no requirement to implement the option today. However, there is no requirement to implement the option today. However,
implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a
higher level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a higher-level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a
user-level process using a "raw socket" facility), MAY take steps to user-level process using a "raw socket" facility) MAY take steps to
handle the option in anticipation of a future usage. handle the option in anticipation of a future usage.
5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size
5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981
"Path MTU Discovery" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported. From [RFC2460]: "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported.
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 [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 One operational issue with Path MTU Discovery occurs when firewalls
block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU discovery relies on block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU Discovery relies on
such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully
sent. Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery [RFC4821] avoids having sent. "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids
a dependency on Packet Too Big messages. having a dependency on Packet Too Big messages.
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an optional extension that allow the IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an optional extension that allow the
sending of IP datagrams larger than 65.535 bytes. IPv6 Jumbograms sending of IP datagrams larger than 65.535 bytes. IPv6 Jumbograms
make use of IPv6 hop-by-hop options and are only suitable on paths in make use of IPv6 hop-by-hop options and are only suitable on paths in
which every hop and link are capable of supporting Jumbograms (e.g., which every hop and link are capable of supporting Jumbograms (e.g.,
within a campus or datacenter). To date, few implementations exist within a campus or datacenter). To date, few implementations exist,
and there is essentially no reported experience from usage. and there is essentially no reported experience from usage.
Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time. Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time.
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
5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
skipping to change at page 11, line 35 skipping to change at page 11, line 17
5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.
5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862
Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as
defined in [RFC4862]. Configuration of static address(es) may be defined in [RFC4862]. Configuration of static address(es) may be
supported as well. supported as well.
Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses
as described in RFC 4862 [RFC4862]. as described in [RFC4862].
From 4862: From RFC 4862:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface. them to an interface.
skipping to change at page 12, line 13 skipping to change at page 11, line 43
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]. noted therein].
"Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429] "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429]
specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating
addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. RFC addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. RFC
4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce 4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce
the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly
move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize
transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains
optional at this time. optional at this time.
5.9.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 5.9.3. 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,
although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its
point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those
addresses remain the same, making it possible for servers to track addresses remains the same, making it possible for servers to track
the location of an individual device as it moves around, or its the location of an individual device as it moves around or its
pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise pattern of activity if it remains in one place. This may raise
privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862]. privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862].
In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases, In such situations, RFC 4941 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, RFC 4941 provides
limited or no benefit. limited or no benefit.
Implementers of "RFC4941 should be aware that certain addresses are Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are
reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses. reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses.
Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more
details. details.
5.9.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 5.9.4. 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.
5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 5.9.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In
general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses
through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6 or both. There will be a wide through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6, or both. There will be a wide
range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment
requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for address requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for address
assignment. Consequently all hosts SHOULD implement address assignment. Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address
configuration via DHCPv6. configuration via DHCPv6.
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].
5.10. 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.
MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting
Source-Specific Multicast. The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810] Source-Specific Multicast. The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810]
supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of
"filter modes". Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a "filter modes". Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a
multicast group along with a list of senders for that group it wishes multicast group along with a list of senders for the group from which
to receive traffic from. Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node indicates a it wishes to receive traffic. Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node
multicast group along with a list of senders it wishes to exclude indicates a multicast group along with a list of senders from which
receiving traffic from. In practice, operations to block source(s) it wishes to exclude receiving traffic. In practice, operations to
using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used, but add considerable block source(s) using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used but add
implementation complexity to MLDv2. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] is a considerable implementation complexity to MLDv2. Lightweight MLDv2
simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification that omits [RFC5790] is a simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification
EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s). that omits EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s).
Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2
[RFC5790]. Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source- [RFC5790]. Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source-
Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE
functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810],
[RFC4604] and [RFC4607]. Nodes supporting applications that expect [RFC4604], and [RFC4607]. Nodes supporting applications that expect
to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as
Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support MLDv2 as Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support MLDv2 as
defined in [RFC5790]. defined in [RFC5790].
If a node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast 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, however, nodes are strongly [RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, however, nodes are strongly
encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1,
as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that
all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode. 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 versus 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 (RAs) and
Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed DHCP. 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 versus 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 configuring 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 chooses one mechanism, but the network information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one
operator chooses a different mechanism, interoperability suffers. mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism.
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 would need to implement interoperability in such environments, hosts would 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" [RFC6106] was published Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published
as a Standards Track Document. Consequently, DNS configuration as a Standards Track document. Consequently, DNS configuration
information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs. information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs.
Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be
implemented. Specific guidance regarding DNS server discovery is implemented. Specific guidance regarding DNS server discovery is
discussed in Section 7. discussed in Section 7.
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 most nodes will need to capability on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to
provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034] provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034]
functionality, as in RFC 1034, Section 5.3.1, with support for: functionality, as in [RFC1034], Section 5.3.1, with support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596];
- EDNS0 [RFC2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596];
octets. - Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) [RFC2671] to allow for DNS
packet sizes larger than 512 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] [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 [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration
information (See Section 5.8.5) and to obtain additional (non- information (see Section 5.9.5) and to obtain additional (non-
address) configuration. If a host implementation supports address) configuration. If a host implementation supports
applications or other protocols that require configuration that is applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For
specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present, specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present,
DHCP may not be necessary. 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 6106 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. [RFC5006] 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 [RFC6106]. placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106].
Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106]. 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
skipping to change at page 16, line 34 skipping to change at page 16, line 25
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
9. Application Support 9. Application Support
9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952
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 Programming 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. Implementers, however, relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementers, however,
would be advised to consider providing a common API, or reviewing would be advised to consider providing a common API or reviewing
existing 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. Implementers should note functionality used by typical applications. Implementers should note
that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by POSIX that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by the
[POSIX]. Portable Operating System Interface (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 [RFC3484]. 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 [RFC6275]
[RFC3775] features.
10. Mobility 10. Mobility
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] and associated specifications [RFC3776] Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] 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
- 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 specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in
all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC6275], [RFC5555], and
associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this
time. 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
significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular
security approach. security approach.
IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it
possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of) possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of)
communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes. communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes.
IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual
TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc. TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc.
Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such
usage has limited applicability and is not recommended. usage has limited applicability and is not recommended.
A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today
(e.g., IPsec, TLS, SSH, etc.) No one approach has emerged as an (e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH),
ideal technology for all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is etc.) No one approach has emerged as an ideal technology for all
not viewed as the ideal security technology in all cases and is needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the ideal
unlikely to displace the others. security technology in all cases and is 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 IPsec Architecture [RFC4301]
4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture 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., Section 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
key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996]. automated 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 approaches to security other 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 may run
extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full IP on extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full
Security Architecture is not justified. IPsec Architecture is not justified.
11.1. 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., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) the implementation of both
manual and automatic key management. Currently the default automated manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default
key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required in automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required
[RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST in [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST
implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302]. implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302].
11.2. 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 IPsec
Security Architecture are defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithm Architecture are defined in "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Implementation Requirements For ESP and AH' [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes Requirements For ESP and AH" [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes implementing the
implementing the IP Security Architecture MUST conform to the IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4835].
requirements in [RFC4835]. Preferred cryptographic algorithms often Preferred cryptographic algorithms often change more frequently than
change more frequently than security protocols. Therefore security protocols. Therefore, implementations MUST allow for
implementations MUST allow for migration to new algorithms, as migration to new algorithms, as RFC 4835 is replaced or updated in
RFC4835 is replaced or updated in the future. the future.
The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are
defined in 'Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key defined in "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key
Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)' [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2
MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future
updates or replacements to [RFC4307]. updates or replacements to [RFC4307].
12. Router-Specific Functionality 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.
12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 12.1. 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 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710]). The
implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols
implemented. See Section 5.9. that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are implemented. See
Section 5.10.
12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations
be supported. MUST be supported.
Section 7 of RFC 3775 includes some mobility-specific extensions to Section 7 of [RFC6275] includes some mobility-specific extensions to
Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5, Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5,
even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality. even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality.
12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide
configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared
link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site. link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site.
Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different
links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers. links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers.
In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a
single LAN, or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together single LAN or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together
with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is
one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC6204]). However, there is one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC6204]). However, there is
no need for relay agents in such scenarios. no need for relay agents in such scenarios.
In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or
service provider networks, the use of DHCP requires some level of service provider networks, the use of DHCP requires some level of
configuration, in order to configure relay agents, DHCP servers, etc. configuration, in order to configure relay agents, DHCP servers, etc.
In such environments, the DHCP server might even be run on a In such environments, the DHCP server might even be run on a
traditional server, rather than as part of a router. traditional server, rather than as part of a router.
Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP
server functionality on routers is optional. However, routers server functionality on routers is optional. However, routers
targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described
above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality. Note that "Basic above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality. Note that "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC6204] requires Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC6204] requires
implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 CE routers. implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
routers.
13. Network Management 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.
13.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 13.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules
The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that
support an SNMP agent. support a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent.
13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB
IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that The IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes
support an SNMP agent. that support an SNMP agent.
13.1.2. 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 The IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
agent. SNMP agent.
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 11 above.
15. IANA Considerations
This document has no requests for IANA.
16. Authors and Acknowledgments 15. Authors and Acknowledgments
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 15.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors
would like to thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph would like to thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph
Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka
Savola, Yaron Sheffer and Dave Thaler for their comments. Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave Thaler for their comments.
16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments From RFC 4279 15.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4279
The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the The original version of this document (RFC 4279) was written by the
IPv6 Node Requirements design team: IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Jari Arkko Jari Arkko
jari.arkko@ericsson.com jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Marc Blanchet Marc Blanchet
marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca
Samita Chakrabarti Samita Chakrabarti
samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com
Alain Durand Alain Durand
alain.durand@sun.com alain.durand@sun.com
Gerard Gastaud Gerard Gastaud
gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
itojun@iijlab.net itojun@iijlab.net
Atsushi Inoue Atsushi Inoue
inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Masahiro Ishiyama Masahiro Ishiyama
masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
John Loughney John Loughney
john.loughney@nokia.com john.loughney@nokia.com
Rajiv Raghunarayan Rajiv Raghunarayan
raraghun@cisco.com raraghun@cisco.com
Shoichi Sakane Shoichi Sakane
shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com
Dave Thaler Dave Thaler
dthaler@windows.microsoft.com dthaler@windows.microsoft.com
Juha Wiljakka Juha Wiljakka
juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. 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 One ID version to Another 16. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
RFC Editor: Please remove this section upon publication. 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.
17.1. Appendix: Changes from -10to -11 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an
applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.
1. Editorial cleanups. 2. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding
2. Added section on DHCPv6 for servers. SHOULD implement relay references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAYs.
agent functionality, MAY implement servers.
17.2. Appendix: Changes from -09 to -10 3. Changed Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs.
1. With changes in requirements for IPsec and Routing Headers, 4. Added section on SEND (it is a MAY).
clarified language regarding processing of unknown options, and
removed paragraph lising which extension headers were required to
be implemented.
2. Removed "RFC4292-bis" from title.
3. Expanded the text on Jumbograms.
4. Changed recommendation of DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD.
5. Expanded the text on RFC4191, and changed recommendation from MAY
to SHOULD.
17.3. Appendix: Changes from -08 to -09 5. Revised section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more
nuance to recommendation.
1. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD 6. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading overall
[RFC5790] recommendation to a SHOULD.
17.4. Appendix: Changes from -07 to -08 7. Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD.
1. Dropped reference to "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains 8. Added background section on DHCP versus RA options, added SHOULD
without Explicit Tunnels" [RFC2429] in favor of a reference to recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs [RFC6106], and
tunneling via Basic IPv6 Transition Mechanisms (RFC4313). cleaned up DHCP recommendations.
2. Added reference to "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific
Routes" [RFC4191] as a MAY.
3. Added reference to "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 9. Added recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5
for IPv6" (RFC4429). of [RFC6275].
4. Added reference to RFC4941 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers"
5. Added Section on APIs. References are FYI, and none are
required.
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.
8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
17.5. Appendix: Changes from -06 to -07 10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942].
1. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5 11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
of RFC 3775. SHOULD be implemented.
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.
8. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
17.6. Appendix: Changes from -05 to -06 12. Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
it a MUST to implement.
1. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section. Text has been discussed 13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
by 6man and saag. [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
2. Added text to introduction clarifying that this document applies
to general nodes and that other profiles may be more specific in
their requirements
3. Editorial cleanups in Neighbor Discovery section in particular.
Text made more crisp.
4. Moved some of the DHCP text around. Moved stateful address
discussion to Section 5.8.5.
5. Added additional nuance to the redirect requirements w.r.t.
default configuration setting.
17.7. Appendix: Changes from -04 to -05 14. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about [RFC3363].
1. Cleaned up IPsec section, but key questions (MUST vs. SHOULD) 15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
still open. including [RFC4443], [RFC4291], [RFC3596], and [RFC4213].
2. Added background section on DHCP vs. RA options. 16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There
3. Added SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration vi RAs is no consensus at present on how to process these flags, and
(RFC5006bis). discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
4. Cleaned up DHCP section, as it was referring to the M&O bits. update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].
5. Cleaned up the Security Considerations Section.
17.8. Appendix: Changes from -03 to -04 17. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate document is an applicability 18. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
statement [RFC5952] a SHOULD.
2. Updated the section on Mobility protocols
3. Changed Sub-IP Layer Section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs.
4. Added Section on SEND (make it a MAY)
5. Redid Section on Privacy Extensions (RFC4941) to add more nuance
to recommendation
6. Redid section on Mobility, and added additional RFCs.
18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 19. Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
it a MUST to implement.
1. There have been many editorial clarifications as well as 20. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
significant additions and updates. While this section [RFC5790].
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. Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD.
9. Added background section on DHCP vs RA options, added SHOULD
recommendation sfor DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106),
cleaned up DHCP recommendations
10. Added recommendation that routers implement Section 7.3 and 7.5
of RFC 3775.
11. Added pointer to subnet clarification document (RFC 5942).
12. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented
13. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a 21. Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and
MUST to implement.
14. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
15. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about RFC-3363.
16. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
including 4443, 4291, 3596, 4213.
17. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There
is no consensus at present on how to process these flags and
discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (RFC 4862).
18. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
19. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
20. Added reference to RFC5722 (Overlapping Fragments), made it a
MUST to implement.
21. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
[RFC5790]
22. Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]. More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].
19. References 22. Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.
19.1. Normative References 17. References
17.1. Normative References
[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.
[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.
skipping to change at page 28, line 30 skipping to change at page 26, line 43
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.
[RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O. [RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011. Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011.
19.2. Informative References [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, November 2011.
17.2. Informative References
[DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6 [DODv6] DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6
Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0", Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0",
July 2010, July 2010,
<http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_50.pdf>. <http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_50.pdf>.
[POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001 Standard for Information [POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information
Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX),
ISO/IEC 9945:2002", December 2001, ISO/IEC 9945:2009", <http://www.ieee.org>.
<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.
[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.
[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
RFC 2491, January 1999.
[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.
[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.
skipping to change at page 29, line 39 skipping to change at page 28, line 5
RFC 3493, February 2003. RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei, [RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003. IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003.
[RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface [RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678, Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
January 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 [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004. Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[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.
skipping to change at page 31, line 10 skipping to change at page 29, line 20
PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. 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.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile [USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile
for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008, for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008,
<http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/usgv6-v1.pdf>. <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 212 333 Ravenswood Ave.
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA USA
Phone: 443-502-5815 Phone: +1 443 502 5815
Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com EMail: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com
John Loughney John Loughney
Nokia Nokia
955 Page Mill Road 200 South Mathilda Ave.
Palo Alto 94303 Sunnyvale, CA 94086
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. 174 change blocks. 
398 lines changed or deleted 346 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/