draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06.txt   draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-07.txt 
IPv6 Maintenance L. Colitti IPv6 Maintenance L. Colitti
Internet-Draft J. Linkova Internet-Draft J. Linkova
Intended status: Standards Track Google Intended status: Standards Track Google
Expires: April 5, 2020 October 3, 2019 Expires: May 5, 2020 November 2, 2019
Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements
draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06 draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-07
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a Router Advertisement option to communicate This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery option to be used in
NAT64 prefixes to hosts. Router Advertisements to communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 5, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Use cases for communicating the NAT64 prefix to hosts . . . . 3 2. Use cases for communicating the NAT64 prefix to hosts . . . . 3
3. Why include the NAT64 prefix in Router Advertisements . . . . 3 3. Why include the NAT64 prefix in Router Advertisements . . . . 3
4. Usage Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Usage Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Option format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Option format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Handling Multiple NAT64 Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. PREF64 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. PREF64 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
NAT64 [RFC6146] with DNS64 [RFC6147] is a widely-deployed mechanism NAT64 [RFC6146] with DNS64 [RFC6147] is a widely-deployed mechanism
to provide IPv4 access on IPv6-only networks. In various scenarios, to provide IPv4 access on IPv6-only networks. In various scenarios,
the host must be aware of the NAT64 prefix in use by the network. the host must be aware of the NAT64 prefix in use by the network.
This document specifies a Router Advertisement [RFC4861] option to This document specifies a Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] option to be
communicate the NAT64 prefix to hosts. used in Router Advertisements to communicate NAT64 prefixes to hosts.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Terminology 1.2. Terminology
PREF64 (or NAT64 prefix): an IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 address PREF64 (or NAT64 prefix): an IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 address
synthesis [RFC6146]; synthesis [RFC6146];
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to
IPv4 Servers [RFC6146]; IPv4 Servers [RFC6146];
RA: Router Advertisement, a message used by IPv6 routers to advertise RA: Router Advertisement, a message used by IPv6 routers to advertise
skipping to change at page 3, line 21 skipping to change at page 3, line 23
* Local DNSSEC validation (DNS64 in stub-resolver mode). As * Local DNSSEC validation (DNS64 in stub-resolver mode). As
discussed in [RFC6147] section 2, the stub resolver in the host discussed in [RFC6147] section 2, the stub resolver in the host
"will try to obtain (real) AAAA RRs, and in case they are not "will try to obtain (real) AAAA RRs, and in case they are not
available, the DNS64 function will synthesize AAAA RRs for available, the DNS64 function will synthesize AAAA RRs for
internal usage." This is required in order to use DNSSEC on a internal usage." This is required in order to use DNSSEC on a
NAT64 network. NAT64 network.
* Trusted DNS server. AAAA synthesis is required for the host to * Trusted DNS server. AAAA synthesis is required for the host to
be able to use a DNS server not provided by the network (e.g., be able to use a DNS server not provided by the network (e.g.,
a DNS-over-TLS server [RFC7858] with which the host has an a DNS-over-TLS [RFC7858] or DNS-over-HTTPS [RFC8484] server
existing trust relationship). with which the host has an existing trust relationship).
* Networks with no DNS64 server. Hosts that support AAAA * Networks with no DNS64 server. Hosts that support AAAA
synthesis and that are aware of the NAT64 prefix in use do not synthesis and that are aware of the NAT64 prefix in use do not
need the network to perform the DNS64 function at all. need the network to perform the DNS64 function at all.
o Enabling NAT64 address translation functions on end hosts. For o Enabling NAT64 address translation functions on end hosts. For
example: example:
* IPv4 address literals on an IPv6-only host. As described in * IPv4 address literals on an IPv6-only host. As described in
[RFC8305] section 7.1, IPv6-only hosts connecting to IPv4 [RFC8305] section 7.1, IPv6-only hosts connecting to IPv4
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 26
existing implementation is required. Other options such as [RFC7225] existing implementation is required. Other options such as [RFC7225]
require implementing other protocols (e.g. PCP [RFC7225]) which require implementing other protocols (e.g. PCP [RFC7225]) which
could be considered an obstacle for deployment. could be considered an obstacle for deployment.
4. Usage Guidelines 4. Usage Guidelines
This option specifies exactly one NAT64 prefix for all IPv4 This option specifies exactly one NAT64 prefix for all IPv4
destinations. If the network operator desires to route different destinations. If the network operator desires to route different
parts of the IPv4 address space to different NAT64 devices, this can parts of the IPv4 address space to different NAT64 devices, this can
be accomplished by routing more specifics of the NAT64 prefix to be accomplished by routing more specifics of the NAT64 prefix to
those devices. For example, if the operator would like to route those devices. For example, if the operator is using the RFC1918
address space, e.g. 10.0.0.0/8 internally and would like to route
10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device A and the rest of the IPv4 space 10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device A and the rest of the IPv4 space
through NAT64 device B, and the operator's NAT64 prefix is through NAT64 device B, and the operator's NAT64 prefix is
2001:db8:a:b::/96, then the operator can route 2001:db8:a:b::/96, then the operator can route
2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 to NAT64 A and 2001:db8:a:b::/64 to NAT64 B. 2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 to NAT64 A and 2001:db8:a:b::/96 to NAT64 B.
This option may appear more than once in a Router Advertisement (e.g. This option may appear more than once in a Router Advertisement (e.g.
in case of graceful renumbering the network from one NAT64 prefix to in case of graceful renumbering the network from one NAT64 prefix to
another). Host behaviour with regards to synthesizing IPv6 addresses another). Host behaviour with regards to synthesizing IPv6 addresses
from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in
Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have non- Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have non-
zero lifetime. zero lifetime.
In a network (or a provisioning domain) that provides both IPv4 and In a network (or a provisioning domain) that provides both IPv4 and
NAT64, it may be desirable for certain IPv4 addresses not to be NAT64, it may be desirable for certain IPv4 addresses not to be
translated. An example might be private address ranges that are translated. An example might be private address ranges that are
local to the network/provisioning domain and should not be reached local to the network/provisioning domain and should not be reached
through the NAT64. This type of configuration cannot be conveyed to through the NAT64. This type of configuration cannot be conveyed to
hosts using this option, or through other NAT64 prefix provisioning hosts using this option, or through other NAT64 prefix provisioning
mechanisms such as [RFC7050] or [RFC7225]. This problem does not mechanisms such as [RFC7050] or [RFC7225]. This problem does not
apply in IPv6-only networks, because in such networks, the host does apply in IPv6-only networks, because in such networks, the host does
not have an IPv4 address and cannot reach any IPv4 destinations not have an IPv4 address and cannot reach any IPv4 destinations
without the NAT64.. without the NAT64.
5. Option format 5. Option format
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Lifetime | PLC | | Type | Length | Scaled Lifetime | PLC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+ + + +
| Highest 96 bits of the Prefix | | Highest 96 bits of the Prefix |
+ + + +
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: NAT64 Prefix Option Format Figure 1: NAT64 Prefix Option Format
Fields: Fields:
Type 8-bit identifier of the PREF64 option type as assigned by Type 8-bit identifier of the PREF64 option type as assigned by
IANA: TBD IANA: TBD
Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (including Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (including
the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 octets. The the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 octets. The
sender MUST set the length to 2. The receiver MUST ignore sender MUST set the length to 2. The receiver MUST ignore
the PREF64 option if the length field value is not 2. the PREF64 option if the length field value is not 2.
Lifetime 13-bit unsigned integer. The maximum time in units of 8 Scaled 13-bit unsigned integer. The maximum time in units of 8
seconds over which this NAT64 prefix MAY be used. The value Lifetime seconds over which this NAT64 prefix MAY be used. The value
of Lifetime SHOULD by default be set to the lesser of 3 x of the Scaled Lifetime field SHOULD by default be set to the
MaxRtrAdvInterval divided by 8, or 8191. The receiver MUST lesser of 3 x MaxRtrAdvInterval divided by 8, or 8191. The
multiply the Lifetime value by 8 (for example, by logical receiver MUST multiply the Scaled Lifetime value by 8 (for
left shift) to calculate the maximum time in seconds the example, by logical left shift) to calculate the maximum
prefix MAY be used. Lifetime of 0 indicates that the prefix time in seconds the prefix MAY be used. Lifetime of 0
SHOULD NOT be used anymore. Router vendors SHOULD allow indicates that the prefix SHOULD NOT be used anymore. Router
administrators to specify non-zero lifetime values which are vendors SHOULD allow administrators to specify non-zero
not divisible by 8. In such cases the router SHOULD round lifetime values which are not divisible by 8. In such cases
the provided value up to the lesser of nearest integer the router SHOULD round the provided value up to the lesser
divisible by 8, or 65528 and divide the result by 8 (or just of nearest integer divisible by 8, or 65528 and divide the
perform a logical right-shift by 3) and set the Lifetime result by 8 (or just perform a logical right-shift by 3) and
field to the resulting value. set the Scaled Lifetime field to the resulting value.
PLC 3-bit unsigned integer. This field encodes the NAT64 Prefix PLC 3-bit unsigned integer. This field encodes the NAT64 Prefix
(Prefix Length defined in [RFC6052]. The PLC field values 0, 1, 2, (Prefix Length defined in [RFC6052]. The PLC field values 0, 1, 2,
Length 3, 4 and 5 indicate the NAT64 prefix length of 96, 64, 56, Length 3, 4 and 5 indicate the NAT64 prefix length of 96, 64, 56,
Code) 48, 40 and 32 bits respectively. The receiver MUST ignore Code) 48, 40 and 32 bits respectively. The receiver MUST ignore
the PREF64 option if the prefix length code field is not set the PREF64 option if the prefix length code field is not set
to one of those values. to one of those values.
Highest 96-bit unsigned integer. Contains bits 0 - 95 of the NAT64 Highest 96-bit unsigned integer. Contains bits 0 - 95 of the NAT64
96 bits prefix. 96 bits prefix.
skipping to change at page 7, line 12 skipping to change at page 7, line 12
o the PREF64 option presents in a single RA more than once; o the PREF64 option presents in a single RA more than once;
o the host receives multiple RAs with different PREF64 prefixes on o the host receives multiple RAs with different PREF64 prefixes on
one or multiple interfaces. one or multiple interfaces.
When multiple PREF64 were discovered via RA PREF64 Option (the Option When multiple PREF64 were discovered via RA PREF64 Option (the Option
presents more than once in a single RA or multiple RAs were presents more than once in a single RA or multiple RAs were
received), host behaviour with regards to synthesizing IPv6 addresses received), host behaviour with regards to synthesizing IPv6 addresses
from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in from IPv4 addresses SHOULD follow the recommendations given in
Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have non- Section 3 of [RFC7050], limited to the NAT64 prefixes that have non-
zero lifetime.. zero lifetime.
When different PREF64 are discovered by using multiple mechanisms, When different PREF64 are discovered by using multiple mechanisms,
hosts SHOULD select one source of information only. The RECOMMENDED hosts SHOULD select one source of information only. The RECOMMENDED
order is: order is:
o PCP-discovered prefixes [RFC7225], if supported; o PCP-discovered prefixes [RFC7225], if supported;
o PREF64 discovered via RA Option; o PREF64 discovered via RA Option;
o PREF64 resolving IPv4-only fully qualified domain name [RFC7050] o PREF64 resolving IPv4-only fully qualified domain name [RFC7050]
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 7, line 45
received on a given link and verify the consistency. Detected received on a given link and verify the consistency. Detected
inconsistencies indicate that one or more routers might be inconsistencies indicate that one or more routers might be
misconfigured. Routers SHOULD log such cases to system or network misconfigured. Routers SHOULD log such cases to system or network
management. Routers SHOULD check and compare the following management. Routers SHOULD check and compare the following
information: information:
o set of PREF64 with non-zero lifetime; o set of PREF64 with non-zero lifetime;
o set of PREF64 with zero lifetime. o set of PREF64 with zero lifetime.
PvD-aware routers MUST only compare information scoped to the same Provisioning Domain (PvD, [RFC7556])-aware routers MUST only compare
implicit or explicit PvD. information scoped to the same implicit or explicit PvD.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option The IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option
type for the PREF64 option defined in this document. type for the PREF64 option defined in this document.
+---------------+-------+ +---------------+-------+
| Option Name | Type | | Option Name | Type |
+---------------+-------+ +---------------+-------+
| PREF64 option | (TBD) | | PREF64 option | (TBD) |
skipping to change at page 8, line 27 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
The IANA registry for these options is: The IANA registry for these options is:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters [1]
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
Because Router Advertisements are required in all IPv6 configuration Because Router Advertisements are required in all IPv6 configuration
scenarios, on IPv6-only networks, Router Advertisements must already scenarios, on IPv6-only networks, Router Advertisements must already
be secured, e.g., by deploying RA guard [RFC6105]. Providing all be secured, e.g., by deploying RA guard [RFC6105]. Providing all
configuration in Router Advertisements increases security by ensuring configuration in Router Advertisements reduces the attack surface to
that no other protocols can be abused by malicious attackers to be targeted by malicious attackers to provide hosts with invalid
provide hosts with invalid configuration. configuration as compared to distributing the configuration through
multiple different mechanisms that need to be secured independently.
The security measures that must already be in place to ensure that The security measures that must already be in place to ensure that
Router Advertisements are only received from legitimate sources Router Advertisements are only received from legitimate sources
eliminate the problem of NAT64 prefix validation described in section eliminate the problem of NAT64 prefix validation described in section
3.1 of [RFC7050]. 3.1 of [RFC7050].
10. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
review and feedback: Mikael Abrahamsson, Mark Andrews, Brian E review and feedback: Mikael Abrahamsson, Mark Andrews, Brian E
Carpenter, David Farmer, Nick Heatley, Robert Hinden, Martin Hunek, Carpenter, David Farmer, Nick Heatley, Robert Hinden, Martin Hunek,
Tatuya Jinmei, Erik Kline, David Lamparter, Jordi Palet Martinez, Tatuya Jinmei, Erik Kline, Suresh Krishnan, David Lamparter, Jordi
Tommy Pauly, Alexandre Petrescu, Michael Richardson, David Schinazi, Palet Martinez, Tommy Pauly, Alexandre Petrescu, Michael Richardson,
Ole Troan, Bernie Volz. David Schinazi, Ole Troan, Bernie Volz.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 20 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of [RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013, RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J. [RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105, Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 10, line 10
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013, RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the [RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225, Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[RFC7556] Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain
Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7556>.
[RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D., [RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.
[RFC8305] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2: [RFC8305] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305, Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>.
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.
11.3. URIs 11.3. URIs
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Lorenzo Colitti Lorenzo Colitti
Google Google
Shibuya 3-21-3 Shibuya 3-21-3
Shibuya, Tokyo 150-0002 Shibuya, Tokyo 150-0002
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
39 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/