draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt   draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force T. Chown Internet Engineering Task Force T. Chown
Internet-Draft Jisc Internet-Draft Jisc
Obsoletes: 6434 (if approved) J. Loughney Obsoletes: 6434 (if approved) J. Loughney
Intended status: Informational Nokia Intended status: Informational Intel
Expires: January 4, 2018 T. Winters Expires: May 2, 2018 T. Winters
University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire
July 3, 2017 October 29, 2017
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01 draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02
Abstract Abstract
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments. deployments.
This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294. This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at 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 January 4, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200 . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Support for IPv6 Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Support for IPv6 Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Protecting a node from excessive EH options . . . . . . . 8
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 9 5.4. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 10 5.5. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 10
5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.7. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.7.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.2. Minimum MTU considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC
4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC
4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 . 11 5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 . 12
5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 . . . . 12 5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 . . . . 12
6. Addressing and Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Addressing and Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . . . 12 6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . . . 12
6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . . . 13 6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . . . 13
6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - 6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 -
RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 14 6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 15
6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . . . 15 6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . . . 15
7. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Configuring Non-Address Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Configuring Non-Address Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway . . . . . . . . 16
8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration - RFC 8106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Configuration - RFC 8106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host 8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Service Discovery Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Service Discovery Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . 17 11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . 18
11.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . 17 11.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . 18
12. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 14. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . 21 14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . 21
14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 21 14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 21
14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 21 14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 22
14.4. IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding - BCP
198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
15. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 15. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
16. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 16. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . 22 16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . 23
16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16.2. YANG Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.2. YANG Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16.2.2. System Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.2.2. System Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.2.3. System Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.2.3. System Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 19. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . 24 19.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . 24
19.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . 24 19.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . 24
19.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . 24 19.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . 24
20. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines common functionality required by both IPv6 This document defines common functionality required by both IPv6
hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or
additional features, but this document collects and summarizes additional features, but this document collects and summarizes
requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one
place. place.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details and This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details and
skipping to change at page 4, line 48 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be
deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore,
it is important to develop requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure it is important to develop requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure
interoperability. interoperability.
This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
requirements specified here. requirements specified here.
1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes
From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460], From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC8200],
we have the following definitions: we have the following definitions:
IPv6 node - a device that implements IPv6. IPv6 node - a device that implements IPv6.
IPv6 router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly IPv6 router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly
addressed to itself. addressed to itself.
IPv6 host - any node that is not a router. IPv6 host - any node that is not a router.
**BIS We will need to refer to 2460-bis, as well as 1981-bis and
4291-bis, throughout this document. These are still in flux, but we
will know the final versions of these documents before this -bis is
published, so can adapt text here once those updates are complete.**
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
AH Authentication Header AH Authentication Header
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
others. others.
As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the
layer 2 technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been layer 2 technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been
developed. It is provided for informational purposes only and may developed. It is provided for informational purposes only and may
not be complete. not be complete.
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464] - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]
- IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification [RFC2590] Specification [RFC2590]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146] - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146]
- Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) - Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338] Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944] - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]
skipping to change at page 6, line 33 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible
to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include: to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include:
- Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address - Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address
Translations (NATs) [RFC4380] Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]
- Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and - Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers" [RFC4213] Routers" [RFC4213]
**BIS Do we want a small section somewhere on UDP IPv6 tunneling, and
issues like RFC 6935, or 6936?**
5. IP Layer 5. IP Layer
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC8200]. This
specification MUST be supported. specification MUST be supported.
**BIS Again, update for RFC 2460 -bis **
Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
described in RFC 2460. described in RFC 8200.
The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 8200.
Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment
headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in
[RFC5722]. [RFC5722].
[RFC6946] discusses IPv6 atomic fragments, and recommends that IPv6 [RFC6946] discusses IPv6 atomic fragments, and recommends that IPv6
atomic fragments are processed independently of any other fragments, atomic fragments are processed independently of any other fragments,
to protect against fragmentation-based attacks. [RFC8021] goes to protect against fragmentation-based attacks. [RFC8021] goes
skipping to change at page 7, line 27 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label
field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437]. field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437].
Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. It is depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. It is
RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow label by setting the 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 Flow Label field for all packets of a given flow to the same value
chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution. chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.
5.2. Support for IPv6 Extension Headers 5.2. Support for IPv6 Extension Headers
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these RFC 8200 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers. headers.
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is
Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to
security concerns and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized security concerns and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized
routing type. routing type.
Further, [RFC7045] adds specific requirements for processing of Further, [RFC7045] adds specific requirements for processing of
Extension Headers, in particular that any forwarding node along an Extension Headers, in particular that any forwarding node along an
IPv6 packet's path, which forwards the packet for any reason, SHOULD IPv6 packet's path, which forwards the packet for any reason, SHOULD
do so regardless of any extension headers that are present. do so regardless of any extension headers that are present.
[RFC7112] discusses issues with oversized IPv6 Extension Header [RFC7112] discusses issues with oversized IPv6 Extension Header
chains, and states that when a node fragments an IPv6 datagram, it chains, and states that when a node fragments an IPv6 datagram, it
MUST include the entire IPv6 Header Chain in the First Fragment. MUST include the entire IPv6 Header Chain in the First Fragment.
As stated in RFC2460, extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop As stated in RFC8200, extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop
Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node
along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or 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 each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the
Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. Destination Address field of the IPv6 header.
Should a new type of Extension Header need to be defined, its format Should a new type of Extension Header need to be defined, its format
MUST follow the consistent format described in Section 4 of MUST follow the consistent format described in Section 4 of
[RFC6564]. [RFC6564].
** BIS add text on host side processing of IPv6 EHs. From list 5.3. Protecting a node from excessive EH options
discussion about protecting receiver from excessive EH options/pads/
etc.
5.3. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 Per RFC 8200, end hosts are expected to process all extension
headers, destination options, and hop-by-hop options in a packet.
Given that the only limit on the number and size of extension headers
is the MTU, the processing of received packets could be considerable.
It is also conceivable that a long chain of extension headers might
be used as a form of denial-of-service attack. Accordingly, a host
may place limits on the number and sizes of extension headers and
options it is willing to process.
A host MAY limit the number of consecutive PAD1 options in
destination options or hop-by-hop options to seven. In this case, if
the more than seven consecutive PAD1 options are present the the
packet should be silently discarded. The rationale is that if
padding of eight or more bytes is required than the PADN option
should be used.
A host MAY limit number of bytes in a PADN option to be less than
eight. In such a case, if a PADN option is present that has a length
greater than seven then the packet should be silently discarded. The
rationale for this guideline is that the purpose of padding is for
alignment and eight bytes is the maximum alignment used in IPv6.
A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hob-by-
hop options. This should be configurable where the default is to
accept unknown options and process them per RFC2460. If a packet
with unknown options is received and the host is configured to
disallow them, then the packet should be silently discarded.
A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum number of non-padding
options allowed in a destination options and hop-by-hop extension
headers. If this feature is supported the maximum number should be
configurable and the default value SHOULD be set to eight. The
limits for destination options and hop-by-hop options may be
separately configurable. If a packet is received and the number of
destination or hop-by-hop optines exceeds the limit, then the packet
should be silently discarded.
A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum length of destination
options or hop-by-hop options extension header. This value should be
configurable and the default is to accept options of any length. If
a packet is received and the length of destination or hop-by-hop
options extension header exceeds the length limit, then the packet
should be silently discarded.
5.4. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861]; the definition was Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861]; the definition was
updated by [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC updated by [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC
4861 states: 4861 states:
Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP
over a particular link type) this document applies to all link over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., Non- its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., Non-
Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or
skipping to change at page 9, line 31 skipping to change at page 10, line 22
are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks
dominated by routers, Redirects are typically disabled. The sending dominated by routers, Redirects are typically disabled. The sending
of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They
MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on
edge networks. edge networks.
"IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional
recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers. recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
[RFC4311] SHOULD be supported. [RFC4311] SHOULD be supported.
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 5.5. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971
SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
[RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor
Discovery. SEND has the potential to address certain classes of Discovery. SEND has the potential to address certain classes of
spoofing attacks, but it does not provide specific protection for spoofing attacks, but it does not provide specific protection for
threats from off-link attackers. It requires relatively heavyweight threats from off-link attackers. It requires relatively heavyweight
provisioning, so is only likely to be used in scenarios where provisioning, so is only likely to be used in scenarios where
security considerations are particularly important. security considerations are particularly important.
There have been relatively few implementations of SEND in common There have been relatively few implementations of SEND in common
operating systems and platforms, and thus deployment experience has operating systems and platforms, and thus deployment experience has
been limited to date. been limited to date.
At this time, SEND is considered optional. Due to the complexity in At this time, SEND is considered optional. Due to the complexity in
deploying SEND, its deployment is only likely to be considered where deploying SEND, its deployment is only likely to be considered where
nodes are operating in a particularly strict security environment. nodes are operating in a particularly strict security environment.
5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 5.6. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175
Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends
the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this
writing, 6 of the original 8 single-bit flags have been assigned, writing, 6 of the original 8 single-bit flags have been assigned,
while 2 remain available for future assignment. No flags have been while 2 remain available for future assignment. No flags have been
defined that make use of the new option, and thus, strictly speaking, defined that make use of the new option, and thus, strictly speaking,
there is no requirement to implement the option today. However, there is no requirement to implement the option today. However,
implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a
higher-level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a higher-level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a
user-level process using a "raw socket" facility) MAY take steps to user-level process using a "raw socket" facility) MAY take steps to
handle the option in anticipation of a future usage. handle the option in anticipation of a future usage.
5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 5.7. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size
5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 5.7.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported. "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC8201] SHOULD be supported.
From [RFC2460]: From [RFC8200]:
It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of Discovery [RFC8201], in order to discover and take advantage of
path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6
implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit
implementation of Path MTU Discovery. implementation of Path MTU Discovery.
The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet The rules in [RFC8200] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet
fragmentation and reassembly. fragmentation and reassembly.
One operational issue with Path MTU Discovery occurs when firewalls One operational issue with Path MTU Discovery occurs when firewalls
block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU Discovery relies on block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU Discovery relies on
such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully
sent. "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids sent. "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids
having a dependency on Packet Too Big messages. having a dependency on Packet Too Big messages.
**BIS Add note about 1280 MTU and UDP, as per Mark Andrews' comments 5.7.2. Minimum MTU considerations
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
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? ** While an IPv6 link MTU can be set to 1280 bytes, for IPv6 UDP in
particular, which includes DNS operation, it is recommended that the
sender use a large MTU if they can, in order to avoid gratuitous
fragmentation-caused packet drops.
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443
ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi- ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported. Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported.
5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
"Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191] "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks, provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide
connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In
such cases, RFC 4191 can help. order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191]
and SHOULD implement Type C host role.
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 5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028
In multihomed scenarios, where a host has more than one prefix, each In multihomed scenarios, where a host has more than one prefix, each
allocated by an upstream network that is assumed to implement BCP 38 allocated by an upstream network that is assumed to implement BCP 38
ingress filtering, the host may have multiple routers to choose from. ingress filtering, the host may have multiple routers to choose from.
Hosts that may be deployed in such multihomed environments SHOULD Hosts that may be deployed in such multihomed environments SHOULD
follow the guidance given in [RFC8028]. follow the guidance given in [RFC8028].
skipping to change at page 12, line 6 skipping to change at page 12, line 29
support for source-specific multicast (SSM) as per [RFC4607]. support for source-specific multicast (SSM) as per [RFC4607].
Previous version of this document only required MLDv1 to be Previous version of this document only required MLDv1 to be
implemented on all nodes. Since participation of any MLDv1-only implemented on all nodes. Since participation of any MLDv1-only
nodes on a link require that all other nodeas on the link then nodes on a link require that all other nodeas on the link then
operate in version 1 compatibility mode, the requirement to support operate in version 1 compatibility mode, the requirement to support
MLDv2 on all nodes was upgraded to a MUST. Further, SSM is now the MLDv2 on all nodes was upgraded to a MUST. Further, SSM is now the
preferred multicast distribution method, rather than ASM. preferred multicast distribution method, rather than ASM.
Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used on most link types -- see Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used on most link types -- see
Section 5.3) depends on multicast and requires that nodes join Section 5.4) depends on multicast and requires that nodes join
Solicited Node multicast addresses. Solicited Node multicast addresses.
5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168
An ECN-aware router may set a mark in the IP header instead of An ECN-aware router may set a mark in the IP header instead of
dropping a packet in order to signal impending congestion. The dropping a packet in order to signal impending congestion. The
receiver of the packet echoes the congestion indication to the receiver of the packet echoes the congestion indication to the
sender, which can then reduce its transmission rate as if it detected sender, which can then reduce its transmission rate as if it detected
a dropped packet. a dropped packet.
skipping to change at page 12, line 29 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
** BIS - but note draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-03, e.g., ** BIS - but note draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-03, e.g.,
nonce comment nonce comment
6. Addressing and Address Configuration 6. Addressing and Address Configuration
6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported. The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.
**BIS Update to 4291-bis ** The current IPv6 Address Architecture is based on a 64-bit boundary
for subnet prefixes. The reasoning behind this decision is
**BIS Add note on Why /64? RFC 7421, after the conclusion of the documented in [RFC7421].
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. **
6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations 6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations
Hosts may be configured with addresses through a variety of methods, Hosts may be configured with addresses through a variety of methods,
including SLAAC, DHCPv6, or manual configuration. including SLAAC, DHCPv6, or manual configuration.
[RFC7934] recommends that networks provide general-purpose end hosts [RFC7934] recommends that networks provide general-purpose end hosts
with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and it with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and it
describes the benefits of and the options for doing so. There are, describes the benefits of and the options for doing so.
for example, benefits to multiple addresses for privacy reasons, or
to assigning hosts a whole /64 to avoid the need for host-based NAT.
**BIS could add a reference to draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix- Nodes SHOULD support the capability to be assigned a prefix per host
per-host-06 as a BCP? as documented in Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host]. Such an approach can
offer improved host isolation and enhanced subscriber management on
shared network segments.
6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862
Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. It is
defined in either [RFC4862] or [RFC7217]. It is recommended that, recommended, as described in [RFC8064], that unless there is a
unless there is a specific requirement for MAC addresses to be specific requirement for MAC addresses to be embedded in an IID,
embedded in an IID, nodes follow the procedure in RFC7217 to generate nodes follow the procedure in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based
SLAAC-based addresses. Addresses generated through RFC7217 will be addresses, rather than using [RFC4862]. Addresses generated through
the same whenever a given device (re)appears on the same subnet (with RFC7217 will be the same whenever a given device (re)appears on the
a specific IPv6 prefix), but the IID will vary on each subnet same subnet (with a specific IPv6 prefix), but the IID will vary on
visited. each subnet visited.
Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses
as described in [RFC4862]. as described in [RFC4862].
From RFC 4862: From RFC 4862:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 15, line 26
configuration via DHCPv6. configuration via DHCPv6.
In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address
assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other
configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of
[RFC4862]. [RFC4862].
Where devices are likely to be carried by users and attached to Where devices are likely to be carried by users and attached to
multiple visisted networks, DHCPv6 client anonymity profiles SHOULD multiple visisted networks, DHCPv6 client anonymity profiles SHOULD
be supported as described in [RFC7844] to minimise the discolosure of be supported as described in [RFC7844] to minimise the discolosure of
identifying information. identifying information. Section 5 of RFC7844 describes operational
considerations on the use of such anonymity profiles.
6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724
IPv6 nodes will invariably have multiple addresses configured IPv6 nodes will invariably have multiple addresses configured
simultaneously, and thus will need to choose which addresses to use simultaneously, and thus will need to choose which addresses to use
for which communications. The rules specified in the Default Address for which communications. The rules specified in the Default Address
Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] document MUST be implemented. Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] document MUST be implemented. Since
[RFC8028] updates rule 5.5 from [RFC6724] implementations SHOULD
implement this rule.
7. DNS 7. DNS
DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596]. DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596].
Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need
to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality. to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality.
However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure
capability on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to capability on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to
provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034] provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034]
functionality, as in [RFC1034], Section 5.3.1, with support for: functionality, as in [RFC1034], Section 5.3.1, with support for:
skipping to change at page 16, line 29 skipping to change at page 17, line 8
the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now
generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without
having access to a working DNS resolver, and thus a Standards Track having access to a working DNS resolver, and thus a Standards Track
document has been published to provide this capability [RFC8106]. document has been published to provide this capability [RFC8106].
Implementations MUST include support for the DNS RA option [RFC8106]. Implementations MUST include support for the DNS RA option [RFC8106].
8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host 8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration Configuration
**BIS needs rewriting
In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating
configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements (RAs) and configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements (RAs) and
DHCP. Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed DHCP. RA options have been restricted to those deemed essential for
essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are basic network functioning and for which all nodes are configured with
configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the exactly the same information. Examples include the Prefix
Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, DHCP
DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general has generally been preferred for configuration of more general
parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. Generally
said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option speaking, however, there has been a desire to define only one
should be configured via DHCP versus an RA option has not always been mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than defining
easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define multiple (different) ways of configuring the same information.
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 One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same
information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one
mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism. mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism.
For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant
influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what
configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to
ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected
hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices
may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize
skipping to change at page 19, line 11 skipping to change at page 19, line 34
an IPv6-only environment rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet. an IPv6-only environment rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet.
Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed- Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed-
mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks [RFC5555]. mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks [RFC5555].
More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before
any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in
all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC6275], [RFC5555], and all hosts and routers. Consequently, [RFC6275], [RFC5555], and
associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this
time. time.
IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC7066] lists IPv6 Functionalities that need to be IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC7066] lists a snapshot of required IPv6
implemented above and beyond the recommendations in this document. Functionalities at the time the document was published that would
Additionally a 3GPP IPv6 Host MAY implement [RFC7278] for delivering need to be implemented, going above and beyond the recommendations in
IPv6 prefixes on the LAN link. this document. Additionally a 3GPP IPv6 Host MAY implement [RFC7278]
for delivering IPv6 prefixes on the LAN link.
13. Security 13. Security
This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes.
Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational
procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate
management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level
of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly, of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly,
deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can
skipping to change at page 20, line 32 skipping to change at page 21, line 9
requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) the implementation of both requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) the implementation of both
manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default
automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required
in [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST in [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST
implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302]. implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302].
13.2. Transforms and Algorithms 13.2. Transforms and Algorithms
The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec
Architecture are defined in "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Architecture are defined in "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements For ESP and AH" [RFC7321]. IPv6 nodes implementing the Requirements For ESP and AH" [RFC8221]. IPv6 nodes implementing the
IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC7321]. IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8221].
Preferred cryptographic algorithms often change more frequently than Preferred cryptographic algorithms often change more frequently than
security protocols. Therefore, implementations MUST allow for security protocols. Therefore, implementations MUST allow for
migration to new algorithms, as RFC 7321 is replaced or updated in migration to new algorithms, as RFC 8221 is replaced or updated in
the future. the future.
**BIS update to 7321bis**
The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are
defined in "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key defined in "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key
Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC8247]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2
MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8247] and/or any future
updates or replacements to [RFC4307]. updates or replacements to [RFC8247].
**BIS update to 4307bis**
14. Router-Specific Functionality 14. Router-Specific Functionality
This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss detailed
specific requirements; for the case of typical home routers, routing-specific requirements; for the case of typical home routers,
[RFC7084] defines basic requirements for customer edge routers. [RFC7084] defines basic requirements for customer edge routers.
**BIS Sync here with work by John Brzozowski et al. in draft-ali- Further recommendations on router-specific functionality can be found
ipv6rtr-reqs-02** in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs].
14.1. 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 The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP
[RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710]). The [RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710]). The
Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols
that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are implemented. See that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are implemented. See
Section 5.11. Section 5.11.
skipping to change at page 22, line 13 skipping to change at page 22, line 33
traditional server, rather than as part of a router. traditional server, rather than as part of a router.
Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP
server functionality on routers is optional. However, routers server functionality on routers is optional. However, routers
targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described
above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality. Note that "Basic above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality. Note that "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC7084] requires Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC7084] requires
implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
routers. routers.
14.4. IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding - BCP 198
Forwarding nodes MUST conform to BCP 198 [RFC7608] and thus IPv6
implementations of nodes that may forward packets MUST conform to the
rules specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC4632].
15. Constrained Devices 15. Constrained Devices
The target for this document is general IPv6 nodes. In the case of The target for this document is general IPv6 nodes. In the case of
constrained nodes, with limited CPU, memory, bandwidth or power, constrained nodes, with limited CPU, memory, bandwidth or power,
support for certain IPv6 functionality may need to be considered due support for certain IPv6 functionality may need to be considered due
to those limitations. The requirements of this document are to those limitations. The requirements of this document are
RECOMMENDED for all nodes, including constrained nodes, but RECOMMENDED for all nodes, including constrained nodes, but
compromises may need to be made in certain cases. Where such compromises may need to be made in certain cases. Where such
compromises are made, the interoperability of devices should be compromises are made, the interoperability of devices should be
strongly considered, paticularly where this may impact other nodes on strongly considered, paticularly where this may impact other nodes on
the same link, e.g., only supporting MLDv1 will affect other nodes. the same link, e.g., only supporting MLDv1 will affect other nodes.
The IETF 6LowPAN (IPv6 over Low Power LWPAN) WG defined six RFCs, The IETF 6LowPAN (IPv6 over Low Power LWPAN) WG defined six RFCs,
including a general overview and problem statement ([RFC4919], the including a general overview and problem statement ([RFC4919], the
means by which IPv6 packets are transmitted over IEEE 802.15.4 means by which IPv6 packets are transmitted over IEEE 802.15.4
networks [RFC4944] and ND optimisations for that medium [RFC6775]. networks [RFC4944] and ND optimisations for that medium [RFC6775].
**BIS What else to say here? Talk about resource management in If an IPv6 node is concerned about the impact of IPv6 message power
nodes? Low power operation? consumption, it MAY want to implement the recommendations in
[RFC7772].
16. Network Management 16. Network Management
Network management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6 Network management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6
nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
possible way of controlling these nodes. possible way of controlling these nodes.
A node supporting network management SHOULD support NETCONF [RFC6241] A node supporting network management SHOULD support NETCONF [RFC6241]
and SNMP configuration [RFC3411]. and SNMP configuration [RFC3411].
skipping to change at page 24, line 4 skipping to change at page 24, line 28
beyond the security considerations associated with the individual beyond the security considerations associated with the individual
protocols. protocols.
Security is also discussed in Section 13 above. Security is also discussed in Section 13 above.
18. IANA Considerations 18. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions. This document does not require any IANA actions.
19. Authors and Acknowledgments 19. Authors and Acknowledgments
19.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) 19.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors
would like to thank Brian Carpenter and Dave Thaler for their would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Dave Thaler, Tom Herbert, Erik
Kline, Mohamed Boucadair, and Michayla Newcombe for their
contributions. contributions.
19.2. 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 Ed Jankiewicz and Thomas Narten were named authors of the previous
iteration of this document, RFC6434. iteration of this document, RFC6434.
For this version of the document, the authors thanked Hitoshi Asaeda, For this version of the document, the authors thanked Hitoshi Asaeda,
Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman,
Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave
skipping to change at page 26, line 36 skipping to change at page 26, line 36
8. Added text on RFC7844, anonymity profiles for DHCPv6 clients. 8. Added text on RFC7844, anonymity profiles for DHCPv6 clients.
9. mDNS and DNS-SD added. 9. mDNS and DNS-SD added.
10. Added RFC8028 as a SHOULD. 10. Added RFC8028 as a SHOULD.
11. Added ECN RFC3168 as a SHOULD. 11. Added ECN RFC3168 as a SHOULD.
12. Added reference to RFC7123. 12. Added reference to RFC7123.
13. Removed Jumbograms RFC2675.
14. Updated RFC2460 to 8200.
15. Updated RFC1981 to 8201.
16. Updated RFC1981 to 8201.
17. Updated RFC7321 to 8221.
18. Updated RFC4307 to 8247.
19. Added RFC7772 for power comsumptions
20. Added why /64 boundries - RFC 7421
21. Added a Unique IPv6 PRefix per Host
22. Clarified RFC7066 was snapshot for 3GPP
23. Updated 4191 as a MUST, SHOULD for Type C Host.
24. Removed IPv6 over ATM
25. Added a note in Section 6.6 for RFC6724 Section 5.5/
26. Added MUST for BCP 198
27. Added reference to draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs
28. Added reference to RFC8064
29. Made RFC8028 normative
30. Added text on protection from excessive EH options
31. Added text on dangers of 1280 MTU UDP, esp. wrt DNS traffic
21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the
changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
list of all changes. list of all changes.
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an 1. Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an
applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes. applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.
skipping to change at page 28, line 16 skipping to change at page 29, line 11
More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]. More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].
22. Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD. 22. Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.
22. References 22. References
22.1. Normative References 22.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999, RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>. 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411, Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3411, December 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3411, December 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3411>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3411>.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003, RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736, (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736,
April 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3736>. April 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3736>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener [RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005, RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005, RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005, Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4292, April 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4292, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4292>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4292>.
[RFC4293] Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the [RFC4293] Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, DOI 10.17487/RFC4293, Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, DOI 10.17487/RFC4293,
April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4293>. April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4293>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>. December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4307, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4307>.
[RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load [RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
Sharing", RFC 4311, DOI 10.17487/RFC4311, November 2005, Sharing", RFC 4311, DOI 10.17487/RFC4311, November 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4311>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4311>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006, IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007, IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers", [RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 5453, DOI 10.17487/RFC5453, February 2009, RFC 5453, DOI 10.17487/RFC5453, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5453>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5453>.
[RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments", [RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
RFC 5722, DOI 10.17487/RFC5722, December 2009, RFC 5722, DOI 10.17487/RFC5722, December 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5722>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5722>.
[RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet [RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790, Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>.
[RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010, Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and [RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012, RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, [RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service [RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013, Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms [RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
[RFC6946] Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments", [RFC6946] Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments",
RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC6946, May 2013, RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC6946, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6946>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6946>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability [RFC7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048, Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7048, January 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7048, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7048>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7048>.
[RFC7112] Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of [RFC7112] Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of
Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112, Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7112>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7112>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque [RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014, Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
[RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", [RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014, RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for [RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for
System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7317>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7317>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7321>.
[RFC7527] Asati, R., Singh, H., Beebee, W., Pignataro, C., Dart, E., [RFC7527] Asati, R., Singh, H., Beebee, W., Pignataro, C., Dart, E.,
and W. George, "Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection", and W. George, "Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection",
RFC 7527, DOI 10.17487/RFC7527, April 2015, RFC 7527, DOI 10.17487/RFC7527, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7527>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7527>.
[RFC7559] Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss [RFC7559] Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss
Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559, Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7559, May 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7559, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559>.
[RFC7608] Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.
[RFC7739] Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment [RFC7739] Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment
Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC7739, Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC7739,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7739>. February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7739>.
[RFC8021] Gont, F., Liu, W., and T. Anderson, "Generation of IPv6 [RFC8021] Gont, F., Liu, W., and T. Anderson, "Generation of IPv6
Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful", RFC 8021, Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful", RFC 8021,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8021, January 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8021, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8021>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8021>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.
[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.
[RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, [RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017, RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC8221] Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and T.
Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8221, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8221>.
[RFC8247] Nir, Y., Kivinen, T., Wouters, P., and D. Migault,
"Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance
for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 8247, DOI 10.17487/RFC8247, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8247>.
22.2. Informative References 22.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host]
Brzozowski, J. and G. Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix Per
Host", draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-13
(work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs]
Kahn, Z., Brzozowski, J., and R. White, "Requirements for
IPv6 Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-00 (work in
progress), May 2017.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998, Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6 [RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
RFC 2491, DOI 10.17487/RFC2491, January 1999, RFC 2491, DOI 10.17487/RFC2491, January 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>.
[RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
Networks", RFC 2492, DOI 10.17487/RFC2492, January 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2492>.
[RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of [RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC2590, May 1999, RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC2590, May 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets [RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC3146, over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC3146,
October 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>. October 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>.
[RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. [RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3363, August 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3363, August 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3363>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3363>.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003, RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.
[RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei, [RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
IPv6", RFC 3542, DOI 10.17487/RFC3542, May 2003, IPv6", RFC 3542, DOI 10.17487/RFC3542, May 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3542>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3542>.
[RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface [RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678, Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3678, January 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3678, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3678>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3678>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to [RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
Home Agents", RFC 3776, DOI 10.17487/RFC3776, June 2004, Home Agents", RFC 3776, DOI 10.17487/RFC3776, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3776>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3776>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005, RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191, More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
November 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>. November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of [RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of
IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets
over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, DOI 10.17487/RFC4338, over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, DOI 10.17487/RFC4338,
January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>. January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) [RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006, for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.
[RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API [RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API
for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, DOI 10.17487/RFC4584, July for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, DOI 10.17487/RFC4584, July
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4584>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4584>.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4877, April 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4877, April 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4877>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4877>.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6 [RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007, RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.
[RFC5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 [RFC5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007, over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.
[RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S. [RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack [RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.
[RFC6563] Jiang, S., Conrad, D., and B. Carpenter, "Moving A6 to [RFC6563] Jiang, S., Conrad, D., and B. Carpenter, "Moving A6 to
Historic Status", RFC 6563, DOI 10.17487/RFC6563, March Historic Status", RFC 6563, DOI 10.17487/RFC6563, March
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6563>. 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6563>.
[RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S. [RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066, (3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>. November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic [RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084, Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7123] Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Security Implications of IPv6 on [RFC7123] Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Security Implications of IPv6 on
IPv4 Networks", RFC 7123, DOI 10.17487/RFC7123, February IPv4 Networks", RFC 7123, DOI 10.17487/RFC7123, February
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7123>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7123>.
[RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6 [RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
/64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7421] Carpenter, B., Ed., Chown, T., Gont, F., Jiang, S.,
Petrescu, A., and A. Yourtchenko, "Analysis of the 64-bit
Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", RFC 7421,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7421, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7421>.
[RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy [RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy
Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms", Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016, RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.
[RFC7772] Yourtchenko, A. and L. Colitti, "Reducing Energy
Consumption of Router Advertisements", BCP 202, RFC 7772,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7772, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7772>.
[RFC7844] Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity [RFC7844] Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844, Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.
[RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi, [RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi,
"Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204, "Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204,
RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016, RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.
[RFC8096] Fenner, B., "The IPv6-Specific MIB Modules Are Obsolete", [RFC8096] Fenner, B., "The IPv6-Specific MIB Modules Are Obsolete",
RFC 8096, DOI 10.17487/RFC8096, April 2017, RFC 8096, DOI 10.17487/RFC8096, April 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8096>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8096>.
[POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information [POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information
Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX),
ISO/IEC 9945:2009", <http://www.ieee.org>. ISO/IEC 9945:2009", <http://www.ieee.org>.
[USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile [USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile
for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008, for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008,
<http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/usgv6-v1.pdf>. <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/usgv6-v1.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
skipping to change at page 38, line 18 skipping to change at page 40, line 4
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Tim Chown Tim Chown
Jisc Jisc
Lumen House, Library Avenue Lumen House, Library Avenue
Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0SG Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0SG
United Kingdom United Kingdom
Email: tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk Email: tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk
John Loughney John Loughney
Nokia Intel
200 South Mathilda Ave. Santa Clara, CA
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
USA USA
Phone: +1 650 283 8068 Email: john.loughney@gmail.com
Email: john.loughney@nokia.com
Timothy Winters Timothy Winters
University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire
InterOperability Laboratory InterOperability Laboratory
Durham NH Durham NH
United States United States
Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu
 End of changes. 161 change blocks. 
283 lines changed or deleted 372 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/