--- 1/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-00.txt 2017-07-03 09:13:33.984333475 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt 2017-07-03 09:13:34.064335379 -0700 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force T. Chown Internet-Draft Jisc Obsoletes: 6434 (if approved) J. Loughney Intended status: Informational Nokia -Expires: November 2, 2017 T. Winters +Expires: January 4, 2018 T. Winters University of New Hampshire - May 2017 + July 3, 2017 IPv6 Node Requirements - draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-00 + draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01 Abstract This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294. @@ -28,21 +28,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on November 2, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -55,86 +55,92 @@ Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - - RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 5.2. Support for IPv6 Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 5.3. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 9 - 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . 9 + 5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 10 5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - - RFC 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 11 - 5.9.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . 11 - 5.9.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 11 - 5.9.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - - RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5.9.5. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . 13 - 5.9.6. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC - 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 13 - 6. DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host - Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - - RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 16 - 7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS - Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and - Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . 16 - 9.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . 17 - 10. Cellular Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 19 - 12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 20 - 13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 13.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . 20 - 13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet - Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 14. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . 21 - 16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . 21 - 16.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . 21 - 17. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC + 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC + 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 . 11 + 5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 . . . . 12 + 6. Addressing and Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . . . 12 + 6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . . . 12 + 6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . . . 13 + 6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - + RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 14 + 6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . . . 15 + 7. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 8. Configuring Non-Address Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . 15 + 8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway . . . . . . . . 16 + 8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS + Configuration - RFC 8106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host + Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 9. Service Discovery Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 10. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 10.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and + Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 11. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . 17 + 11.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . 17 + 12. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 13. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 13.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 13.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 14. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 21 + 14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 21 + 15. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 16. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . 22 + 16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet + Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 16.2. YANG Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 16.2.2. System Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 16.2.3. System Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 19. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 19.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . 24 + 19.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . 24 + 19.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . 24 + 20. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 1. Introduction - This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6 + This document defines common functionality required by both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or additional features, but this document collects and summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one place. This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details and references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an applicability statement and to provide guidance as to which IPv6 specifications should be implemented in the general case and which specifications may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios. @@ -244,22 +250,20 @@ - Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338] - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] - Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks [RFC5121] - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] - - IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] - In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] - Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers" [RFC4213] **BIS Do we want a small section somewhere on UDP IPv6 tunneling, and @@ -280,61 +284,70 @@ The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in [RFC5722]. [RFC6946] discusses IPv6 atomic fragments, and recommends that IPv6 atomic fragments are processed independently of any other fragments, - to protect against fragmenttation-based attacks. [RFC8021] goes + to protect against fragmentation-based attacks. [RFC8021] goes further and recommends the deprecation of atomic fragments. Nodes - thus MUST not generate atomic fragments. + thus MUST NOT generate atomic fragments. To mitigate a variety of potential attacks, nodes SHOULD avoid using predictable fragment Identification values in Fragment Headers, as discussed in [RFC7739]. + 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. Support for IPv6 Extension Headers + RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these headers. 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 security concerns and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized routing type. - Should a new type of Extension Header need to be defined, its format - MUST follow the consistent format described in Section 4 of - [RFC6564]. - Further, [RFC7045] adds specific requirements for processing of Extension Headers, in particular that any forwarding node along an IPv6 packet's path, which forwards the packet for any reason, SHOULD do so regardless of any extension headers that are present. [RFC7112] discusses issues with oversized IPv6 Extension Header chains, and states that when a node fragments an IPv6 datagram, it MUST include the entire IPv6 Header Chain in the First Fragment. - **BIS Wait to see outcome of insertion of EHs issue in 2460-bis, and - re-state here? ** + As stated in RFC2460, extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop + Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node + along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or + each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the + Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. - 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. + Should a new type of Extension Header need to be defined, its format + MUST follow the consistent format described in Section 4 of + [RFC6564]. -5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 + ** BIS add text on host side processing of IPv6 EHs. From list + discussion about protecting receiver from excessive EH options/pads/ + etc. + +5.3. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861]; the definition was updated by [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC 4861 states: Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., Non- Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or @@ -385,35 +398,20 @@ are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks dominated by routers, Redirects are typically disabled. The sending of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on edge networks. "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers. [RFC4311] SHOULD be supported. -5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 - - "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191] - provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks, - each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers - via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide - connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing - the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In - such cases, RFC 4191 can help. - - Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers - adhering to [RFC7084] use RFC 4191 to advertise routes to certain - local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in - SOHO environments SHOULD implement RFC 4191. - 5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor Discovery. SEND has the potential to address certain classes of spoofing attacks, but it does not provide specific protection for threats from off-link attackers. It requires relatively heavyweight provisioning, so is only likely to be used in scenarios where security considerations are particularly important. @@ -461,59 +459,118 @@ such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully sent. "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids having a dependency on Packet Too Big messages. **BIS Add note about 1280 MTU and UDP, as per Mark Andrews' comments in Berlin? ** 5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 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 which every hop and link are capable of supporting Jumbograms (e.g., within a campus or datacenter). To date, few implementations exist, and there is essentially no reported experience from usage. Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time. **BIS Are these used? Do we need to modify the text for that? ** 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported. -5.9. Addressing +5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 -5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 + "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191] + provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks, + each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers + via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide + connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing + the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In + such cases, RFC 4191 can help. + + Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers + adhering to [RFC7084] use RFC 4191 to advertise routes to certain + local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in + SOHO environments SHOULD implement RFC 4191. + +5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 + + In multihomed scenarios, where a host has more than one prefix, each + allocated by an upstream network that is assumed to implement BCP 38 + ingress filtering, the host may have multiple routers to choose from. + + Hosts that may be deployed in such multihomed environments SHOULD + follow the guidance given in [RFC8028]. + +5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 + + Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv2 + [RFC3810]. MLD is needed by any node that is expected to receive and + process multicast traffic and in particular MLDv2 is required for + support for source-specific multicast (SSM) as per [RFC4607]. + + Previous version of this document only required MLDv1 to be + implemented on all nodes. Since participation of any MLDv1-only + nodes on a link require that all other nodeas on the link then + operate in version 1 compatibility mode, the requirement to support + MLDv2 on all nodes was upgraded to a MUST. Further, SSM is now the + preferred multicast distribution method, rather than ASM. + + Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used on most link types -- see + Section 5.3) depends on multicast and requires that nodes join + Solicited Node multicast addresses. + +5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 + + An ECN-aware router may set a mark in the IP header instead of + dropping a packet in order to signal impending congestion. The + receiver of the packet echoes the congestion indication to the + sender, which can then reduce its transmission rate as if it detected + a dropped packet. + + Nodes that may be deployed in environments where they would benefit + from such early congestion notification SHOULD implement [RFC3168]. + + ** BIS - but note draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-03, e.g., + nonce comment + +6. Addressing and Address Configuration + +6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. **BIS Update to 4291-bis ** **BIS Add note on Why /64? RFC 7421, after the conclusion of the RFC4291-bis (lengthy!!!) discussions on the 64-bit IID topic. But no need for /127 p2p text RFC 6164. And no need for note on IID significance, as per RFC 7136. ** -5.9.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations +6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations Hosts may be configured with addresses through a variety of methods, including SLAAC, DHCPv6, or manual configuration. [RFC7934] recommends that networks provide general-purpose end hosts with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and it describes the benefits of and the options for doing so. There are, for example, benefits to multiple addresses for privacy reasons, or to assigning hosts a whole /64 to avoid the need for host-based NAT. -5.9.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 + **BIS could add a reference to draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix- + per-host-06 as a BCP? + +6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as defined in either [RFC4862] or [RFC7217]. It is recommended that, unless there is a specific requirement for MAC addresses to be embedded in an IID, nodes follow the procedure in RFC7217 to generate SLAAC-based addresses. Addresses generated through RFC7217 will be the same whenever a given device (re)appears on the same subnet (with a specific IPv6 prefix), but the IID will vary on each subnet visited. @@ -548,21 +605,21 @@ the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains optional at this time. [RFC7527] discusses enhanced DAD, and describes an algorithm to automate the detection of looped back IPv6 ND messages used by DAD. Nodes SHOULD implement this behaviour where such detection is beneficial. -5.9.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 +6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 A node using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] to form a globally unique IPv6 address using its MAC address to generate the IID will see that IID remain the same on any visited network, even though the network prefix part changes. Thus it is possible for 3rd party devices such nodes communicate with to track the activities of the node as it moves around the network. Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] address this concern by allowing nodes to configure an additional temporary address where the IID is effectively randomly generated. Privacy addresses are then @@ -578,201 +635,175 @@ enable or disable the use of such temporary addresses. Note that RFC4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC, or of RFC7217-based SLAAC. Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses. Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more details. -5.9.5. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 - - IPv6 nodes will invariably have multiple addresses configured - simultaneously, and thus will need to choose which addresses to use - for which communications. The rules specified in the Default Address - Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] document MUST be implemented. - -5.9.6. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 +6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6, or both. There will be a wide range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for stateful address assignment. Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCPv6. In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of [RFC4862]. -5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - - **BIS MLDv2 only? - - Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 - [RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive - and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used - on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and - requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. - - MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting - Source-Specific Multicast. The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810] - supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of - "filter modes". Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a - multicast group along with a list of senders for the group from which - it wishes to receive traffic. Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node - indicates a multicast group along with a list of senders from which - it wishes to exclude receiving traffic. In practice, operations to - block source(s) using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used but add - considerable implementation complexity to MLDv2. Lightweight MLDv2 - [RFC5790] is a simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification - that omits EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s). - - Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 - [RFC5790]. Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source- - Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE - functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810], - [RFC4604], and [RFC4607]. Nodes supporting applications that expect - to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as - Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support Lightweight - MLDv2 as defined in [RFC5790]. - - If a node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast - (i.e, they do not use Source-Specific Multicast), implementing MLDv1 - [RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, however, nodes are strongly - encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, - as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that - all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode. - - When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the - Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be - followed. - -6. DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration - - **BIS this section probably needs rewriting ** - - In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating - configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements (RAs) and - DHCP. Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed - essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are - configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the - Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, - DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general - parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That - said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option - should be configured via DHCP versus an RA option has not always been - easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define - only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than - defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same - information. + Where devices are likely to be carried by users and attached to + multiple visisted networks, DHCPv6 client anonymity profiles SHOULD + be supported as described in [RFC7844] to minimise the discolosure of + identifying information. - One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same - information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one - mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism. - For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant - influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what - configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to - ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected - hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices - may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize - interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement - multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. +6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 -7. DNS and DHCP + IPv6 nodes will invariably have multiple addresses configured + simultaneously, and thus will need to choose which addresses to use + for which communications. The rules specified in the Default Address + Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] document MUST be implemented. -7.1. DNS +7. DNS DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596]. Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure capability on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034] functionality, as in [RFC1034], Section 5.3.1, with support for: - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; - - Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) [RFC2671] to allow for DNS + - Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) [RFC6891] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 octets. Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035]. A6 Resource Records, which were only ever defined with Experimental status in [RFC3363], are now classified as Historic, as per [RFC6563]. - **BIS Add DNS-SD? ** - -7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 +8. Configuring Non-Address Information -7.2.1. Other Configuration Information +8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration - information (see Section 5.9.6) and to obtain additional (non- - address) configuration. If a host implementation supports - applications or other protocols that require configuration that is - only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For - specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present, - DHCP may not be necessary. + information (see Section 6.5) and to obtain additional (non-address) + configuration. If a host implementation supports applications or + other protocols that require configuration that is only available via + DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For specialized devices on which + no such configuration need is present, DHCP may not be necessary. An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to obtain other configuration information. -7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments +8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway + + There is no defined DHCPv6 Gateway option. Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - are expected to determine their default router information and on- - link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. There - is no defined DHCPv6 Gateway option. + are thus expected to determine their default router information and + on-link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. -7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106 +8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 8106 Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS configuration was not included as an RA option, and DHCP was the recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time, the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without - having access to a working DNS resolver. [RFC5006] was published as - an Experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was - placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106]. + having access to a working DNS resolver, and thus a Standards Track + document has been published to provide this capability [RFC8106]. - Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106]. + Implementations MUST include support for the DNS RA option [RFC8106]. -8. IPv4 Support and Transition +8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host + Configuration + + **BIS needs rewriting + + In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating + configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements (RAs) and + DHCP. Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed + essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are + configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the + Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, + DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general + parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That + said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option + should be configured via DHCP versus an RA option has not always been + easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define + only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than + defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same + information. + + One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same + information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one + mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism. + For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant + influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what + configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to + ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected + hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices + may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize + interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement + multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. + +9. Service Discovery Protocols + + [RFC6762] and [RFC6763] describe multicast DNS (mDNS) and DNS-Based + Service Discovery (DNS-SD) respectively. These protocols, + collectively commonly referred to as the 'Bonjour' protocols after + their naming by Apple, provide the means for devices to discover + services within a local link and, in the absence of a unicast DNS + service, to exchange naming information. + + Where devices are to be deployed in networks where service dicovery + would be beneficial, e.g., for users seeking to discover printers or + display devices, mDNS and DNS-SD SHOULD be supported. + + The IETF dnssd WG is defining solutions for DNS-based service + discovery in multi-link networks. + +10. IPv4 Support and Transition IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. -8.1. Transition Mechanisms +10.1. Transition Mechanisms -8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC +10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 4213 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] MUST be supported. -9. Application Support +11. Application Support -9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 +11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" [RFC5952]. -9.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) +11.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 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 relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementers, however, would be advised to consider providing a common API or reviewing existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to applications. "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6 functionality used by typical applications. Implementers should note @@ -788,28 +819,55 @@ Address Selection rules of [RFC6724]. "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678] provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group memberships. "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] features. -10. Cellular Host +12. Mobility + + Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and associated specifications [RFC3776] + [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the + Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address. All + communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as + expected even as the node moves around. The definition of Mobile IP + includes requirements for the following types of nodes: + + - mobile nodes + + - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization + + - home agents + + - all IPv6 routers + + At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation + and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed + an IPv6-only environment rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. + Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- + mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks [RFC5555]. + + More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before + any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in + all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC6275], [RFC5555], and + associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this + time. IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC7066] lists IPv6 Functionalities that need to be implemented above and beyond the recommendations in this document. Additionally a 3GPP IPv6 Host MAY implement [RFC7278] for delivering IPv6 prefixes on the LAN link. -11. Security +13. Security This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly, deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular security approach. @@ -829,94 +887,95 @@ needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the ideal security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace the others. Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the key management approach of IKE. This document updates that recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture [RFC4301] a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default - automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996]. + automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC7296]. This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types and environments where approaches to security other than IPsec can be justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a very limited number or type of applications, and an application- specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices may run on extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full IPsec Architecture is not justified. - **BIS Add note on security in IPv4-only networks? RFC 7123? - Relevant? ** + Because most common platforms now support IPv6 and have it enabled by + default, IPv6 security is an issue for networks that are ostensibly + IPv4-only; see [RFC7123] for guidance on this area. -11.1. Requirements +13.1. Requirements "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) the implementation of both manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required in [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302]. -11.2. Transforms and Algorithms +13.2. Transforms and Algorithms The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec Architecture are defined in "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation - Requirements For ESP and AH" [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes implementing the - IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4835]. + Requirements For ESP and AH" [RFC7321]. IPv6 nodes implementing the + IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC7321]. Preferred cryptographic algorithms often change more frequently than security protocols. Therefore, implementations MUST allow for - migration to new algorithms, as RFC 4835 is replaced or updated in + migration to new algorithms, as RFC 7321 is replaced or updated in the future. **BIS update to 7321bis** The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are defined in "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future updates or replacements to [RFC4307]. **BIS update to 4307bis** -12. Router-Specific Functionality +14. Router-Specific Functionality This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- specific requirements; for the case of typical home routers, [RFC7084] defines basic requirements for customer edge routers. **BIS Sync here with work by John Brzozowski et al. in draft-ali- ipv6rtr-reqs-02** -12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 +14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP [RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710]). The Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are implemented. See - Section 5.10. + Section 5.11. -12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 +14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations MUST be supported. Section 7 of [RFC6275] includes some mobility-specific extensions to Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5, even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality. -12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 +14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site. Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers. In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a single LAN or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is @@ -930,81 +989,118 @@ traditional server, rather than as part of a router. Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP server functionality on routers is optional. However, routers targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality. Note that "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC7084] requires implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) routers. -13. Network Management +15. Constrained Devices + + The target for this document is general IPv6 nodes. In the case of + constrained nodes, with limited CPU, memory, bandwidth or power, + support for certain IPv6 functionality may need to be considered due + to those limitations. The requirements of this document are + RECOMMENDED for all nodes, including constrained nodes, but + compromises may need to be made in certain cases. Where such + compromises are made, the interoperability of devices should be + strongly considered, paticularly where this may impact other nodes on + the same link, e.g., only supporting MLDv1 will affect other nodes. + + The IETF 6LowPAN (IPv6 over Low Power LWPAN) WG defined six RFCs, + including a general overview and problem statement ([RFC4919], the + means by which IPv6 packets are transmitted over IEEE 802.15.4 + networks [RFC4944] and ND optimisations for that medium [RFC6775]. + + **BIS What else to say here? Talk about resource management in + nodes? Low power operation? + +16. Network Management Network management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only possible way of controlling these nodes. - **BIS This is a little thin. Add Netconf, restconf, yang models? ** - - **BIS add the network polling/syslod nd for none DHCPv6 network - tracking.** + A node supporting network management SHOULD support NETCONF [RFC6241] + and SNMP configuration [RFC3411]. -13.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules +16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules - **BIS Address MIB Obsolete draft + IPv6 MIB have been updated since the last release of the document, + [RFC8096] obseletes several MIBs, the nodes need to not support any + longer. The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that support a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent. -13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB +16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB The IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent. -13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) +16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) The IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent. -14. Constrained Devices +16.2. YANG Data Models - **BIS Should we add notes on constrained devices, and power - efficiency here in a new section? Talk about resource management in - nodes. Low power operation. + The following YANG data models SHOULD be supported by nodes that + support a NETCONF agent. -15. Security Considerations +16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model + + The IP Management YANG Model [RFC7277] SHOULD be supported by nodes + that support NETCONF. + +16.2.2. System Management YANG Model + + The System Management YANG Model [RFC7317] SHOULD be supported by + nodes that support NETCONF. + +16.2.3. System Management YANG Model + + The Interface Management YANG Model [RFC7223] SHOULD be supported by + nodes that support NETCONF. + +17. Security Considerations This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, beyond the security considerations associated with the individual protocols. - Security is also discussed in Section 11 above. + Security is also discussed in Section 13 above. -16. Authors and Acknowledgments +18. IANA Considerations -16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) + This document does not require any IANA actions. + +19. Authors and Acknowledgments +19.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors - would like to thank **BIS Add new acknowledgements for significant - comments ** for their contributions. + would like to thank Brian Carpenter and Dave Thaler for their + contributions. -16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434 +19.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434 Ed Jankiewicz and Thomas Narten were named authors of the previous iteration of this document, RFC6434. For this version of the document, the authors thanked Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave Thaler. -16.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294 +19.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294 The original version of this document (RFC 4294) was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team: Jari Arkko jari.arkko@ericsson.com Marc Blanchet marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca @@ -1039,34 +1135,52 @@ Juha Wiljakka juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs. -17. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 +20. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 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. - 1. Added 6LoWPAN to link layers + 1. Restructured sections - 2. Removed DOD IPv6 Profile updates + 2. Added 6LoWPAN to link layers. - 3. Removed IPv6 Mobility RFC6275 + 3. Removed DOD IPv6 Profile updates. -18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 + 4. Updated to state MLDv2 support is a MUST. + + 5. Require DNS RA Options, RFC8106 is a MUST. + + 6. Added section on constrained devices. + + 7. Added text on RFC7934, address availability to hosts. + + 8. Added text on RFC7844, anonymity profiles for DHCPv6 clients. + + 9. mDNS and DNS-SD added. + + 10. Added RFC8028 as a SHOULD. + + 11. Added ECN RFC3168 as a SHOULD. + + 12. Added reference to RFC7123. + +21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive list of all changes. 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes. 2. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding @@ -1079,21 +1193,21 @@ 5. Revised section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more nuance to recommendation. 6. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading overall recommendation to a SHOULD. 7. Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD. 8. Added background section on DHCP versus RA options, added SHOULD - recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs [RFC6106], and + recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs (RFC6106), and cleaned up DHCP recommendations. 9. Added recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5 of [RFC6275]. 10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942]. 11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] SHOULD be implemented. @@ -1122,23 +1236,23 @@ it a MUST to implement. 20. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD [RFC5790]. 21. Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]. 22. Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD. -19. References +22. References -19.1. Normative References +22.1. Normative References [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, . [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, November 1987, . [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery @@ -1147,42 +1261,44 @@ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, December 1998, . - [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", - RFC 2671, DOI 10.17487/RFC2671, August 1999, - . - [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, . [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999, . + [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition + of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", + RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, + . + [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July 2003, . - [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast - Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, - DOI 10.17487/RFC3590, September 2003, - . + [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An + Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management + Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3411, December 2002, + . [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003, . [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736, April 2004, . @@ -1239,46 +1355,34 @@ [RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing", RFC 4311, DOI 10.17487/RFC4311, November 2005, . [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, . - [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet - Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast - Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source- - Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604, - August 2006, . - [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006, . [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, . [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, . - [RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation - Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and - Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, - DOI 10.17487/RFC4835, April 2007, - . - [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007, . [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007, . @@ -1299,45 +1403,59 @@ [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010, . [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010, . - [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, - "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", - RFC 5996, DOI 10.17487/RFC5996, September 2010, - . - - [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, - "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", - RFC 6106, DOI 10.17487/RFC6106, November 2010, - . + [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., + and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol + (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, + . [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011, . [RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012, . [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, . + [RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013, + . + + [RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service + Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013, + . + + [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. + Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over + Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", + RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, + . + + [RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms + for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013, + . + [RFC6946] Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments", RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC6946, May 2013, . [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013, . [RFC7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability @@ -1349,40 +1467,68 @@ Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112, DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014, . [RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014, . + [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface + Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014, + . + + [RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", + RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014, + . + + [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. + Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 + (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October + 2014, . + + [RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for + System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August + 2014, . + + [RFC7321] McGrew, D. and P. Hoffman, "Cryptographic Algorithm + Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for + Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication + Header (AH)", RFC 7321, DOI 10.17487/RFC7321, August 2014, + . + [RFC7527] Asati, R., Singh, H., Beebee, W., Pignataro, C., Dart, E., and W. George, "Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection", RFC 7527, DOI 10.17487/RFC7527, April 2015, . [RFC7559] Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559, DOI 10.17487/RFC7559, May 2015, . [RFC7739] Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC7739, February 2016, . [RFC8021] Gont, F., Liu, W., and T. Anderson, "Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful", RFC 8021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8021, January 2017, . -19.2. Informative References + [RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, + "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", + RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017, + . + +22.2. Informative References [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, . [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997, . @@ -1430,20 +1576,25 @@ [RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678, DOI 10.17487/RFC3678, January 2004, . [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 2011, . + [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to + Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and + Home Agents", RFC 3776, DOI 10.17487/RFC3776, June 2004, + . + [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005, . [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005, . [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and @@ -1469,80 +1620,108 @@ . [RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, DOI 10.17487/RFC4584, July 2006, . [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, . + [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with + IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4877, April 2007, + . + [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007, . + [RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6 + over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): + Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", + RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007, + . + [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, . - [RFC5006] Jeong, J., Ed., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, - "IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration", - RFC 5006, DOI 10.17487/RFC5006, September 2007, - . - [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007, . [RFC5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007, . [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008, . + [RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack + Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June + 2009, . + [RFC6563] Jiang, S., Conrad, D., and B. Carpenter, "Moving A6 to Historic Status", RFC 6563, DOI 10.17487/RFC6563, March 2012, . [RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S. Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066, November 2013, . [RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084, DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013, . + [RFC7123] Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Security Implications of IPv6 on + IPv4 Networks", RFC 7123, DOI 10.17487/RFC7123, February + 2014, . + [RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014, . [RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, . + [RFC7844] Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity + Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016, + . + [RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi, "Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204, RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016, . + [RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by + Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016, + . + + [RFC8096] Fenner, B., "The IPv6-Specific MIB Modules Are Obsolete", + RFC 8096, DOI 10.17487/RFC8096, April 2017, + . + [POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), ISO/IEC 9945:2009", . [USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008, . Authors' Addresses