draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt   draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-03.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 Intel Intended status: Best Current Practice Intel
Expires: May 2, 2018 T. Winters Expires: August 10, 2018 T. Winters
University of New Hampshire UNH-IOL
October 29, 2017 February 6, 2018
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02 draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-03
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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 42 skipping to change at page 3, line 42
18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
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 5, line 23 skipping to change at page 5, line 23
IPv6 host - any node that is not a router. IPv6 host - any node that is not a router.
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
AH Authentication Header AH Authentication Header
DAD Duplicate Address Detection DAD Duplicate Address Detection
ESP Encapsulating Security Payload ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
IKE Internet Key Exchange IKE Internet Key Exchange
MIB Management Information Base MIB Management Information Base
MLD Multicast Listener Discovery MLD Multicast Listener Discovery
MTU Maximum Transmission Unit MTU Maximum Transmission Unit
NA Neighbor Advertisement NA Neighbor Advertisement
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
skipping to change at page 6, line 38 skipping to change at page 6, line 38
- Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and - Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers" [RFC4213] Routers" [RFC4213]
5. IP Layer 5. IP Layer
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200 5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 8200
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC8200]. This The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC8200]. This
specification MUST be supported. specification MUST be supported.
Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
described in RFC 8200.
The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 8200. The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 8200.
All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of sending and
receiving IPv6 packets; forwarding functionality MAY be supported.
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. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in
sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
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
further and recommends the deprecation of atomic fragments. Nodes further and recommends the deprecation of atomic fragments. Nodes
thus MUST NOT generate atomic fragments. thus MUST NOT generate atomic fragments.
To mitigate a variety of potential attacks, nodes SHOULD avoid using To mitigate a variety of potential attacks, nodes SHOULD avoid using
predictable fragment Identification values in Fragment Headers, as predictable fragment Identification values in Fragment Headers, as
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
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 8200 specifies extension headers and the processing for these RFC 8200 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers. headers.
Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
described in RFC 8200. Note that where Section 4 of RFC 8200 refers
to the action to be taken when a Next Header value in the current
header is not recognized by a node, that action applies whether the
value is an unrecognized Extension Header or an unrecognized upper
layer protocol (ULP).
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 RFC8200, 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 It should be noted that when future, new Extension Headers are
MUST follow the consistent format described in Section 4 of defined, the consistent format described in Section 4 of [RFC6564]
[RFC6564]. MUST be followed.
5.3. Protecting a node from excessive EH options 5.3. Protecting a node from excessive EH options
Per RFC 8200, end hosts are expected to process all extension Per RFC 8200, end hosts are expected to process all extension
headers, destination options, and hop-by-hop options in a packet. headers, destination options, and hop-by-hop options in a packet.
Given that the only limit on the number and size of extension headers Given that the only limit on the number and size of extension headers
is the MTU, the processing of received packets could be considerable. is the MTU, the processing of received packets could be considerable.
It is also conceivable that a long chain of extension headers might 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 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 may place limits on the number and sizes of extension headers and
skipping to change at page 8, line 29 skipping to change at page 8, line 29
packet should be silently discarded. The rationale is that if packet should be silently discarded. The rationale is that if
padding of eight or more bytes is required than the PADN option padding of eight or more bytes is required than the PADN option
should be used. should be used.
A host MAY limit number of bytes in a PADN option to be less than 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 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 greater than seven then the packet should be silently discarded. The
rationale for this guideline is that the purpose of padding is for rationale for this guideline is that the purpose of padding is for
alignment and eight bytes is the maximum alignment used in IPv6. alignment and eight bytes is the maximum alignment used in IPv6.
A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hob-by- A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hop-by-
hop options. This should be configurable where the default is to hop options. This should be configurable where the default is to
accept unknown options and process them per RFC2460. If a packet accept unknown options and process them per [RFC8200]. If a packet
with unknown options is received and the host is configured to with unknown options is received and the host is configured to
disallow them, then the packet should be silently discarded. disallow them, then the packet should be silently discarded.
A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum number of non-padding A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum number of non-padding
options allowed in a destination options and hop-by-hop extension options allowed in a destination options and hop-by-hop extension
headers. If this feature is supported the maximum number should be headers. If this feature is supported the maximum number should be
configurable and the default value SHOULD be set to eight. The configurable and the default value SHOULD be set to eight. The
limits for destination options and hop-by-hop options may be limits for destination options and hop-by-hop options may be
separately configurable. If a packet is received and the number of separately configurable. If a packet is received and the number of
destination or hop-by-hop optines exceeds the limit, then the packet destination or hop-by-hop optines exceeds the limit, then the packet
skipping to change at page 10, line 28 skipping to change at page 10, line 28
"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.
5.5. 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.
provisioning, so is only likely to be used in scenarios where
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, and its heavyweight provisioning, its deployment is
nodes are operating in a particularly strict security environment. only likely to be considered where nodes are operating in a
particularly strict security environment.
5.6. 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,
skipping to change at page 11, line 22 skipping to change at page 11, line 22
It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
Discovery [RFC8201], 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 [RFC8200] 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, contrary
block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU Discovery relies on to the guidance in [RFC4890], firewalls block ICMP Packet Too Big
such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully messages. Path MTU Discovery relies on such messages to determine
sent. "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids what size messages can be successfully sent. "Packetization Layer
having a dependency on Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids having a dependency on Packet
Too Big messages.
5.7.2. Minimum MTU considerations 5.7.2. Minimum MTU considerations
While an IPv6 link MTU can be set to 1280 bytes, for IPv6 UDP in While an IPv6 link MTU can be set to 1280 bytes, it is recommended
particular, which includes DNS operation, it is recommended that the that for IPv6 UDP in particular, which includes DNS operation, the
sender use a large MTU if they can, in order to avoid gratuitous sender use a large MTU if they can, in order to avoid gratuitous
fragmentation-caused packet drops. 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
order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191] order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191]
and SHOULD implement Type C host role. and SHOULD implement the Type C host role defined in RFC4191.
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].
5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810
Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv2 Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv2
[RFC3810]. MLD is needed by any node that is expected to receive and [RFC3810]. MLD is needed by any node that is expected to receive and
process multicast traffic and in particular MLDv2 is required for process multicast traffic and in particular MLDv2 is required for
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 versions of this document only required MLDv1 ([RFC2710]) to
implemented on all nodes. Since participation of any MLDv1-only be 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 5.4) 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 in order to
dropping a packet in order to signal impending congestion. The signal impending congestion, rather than dropping a packet. 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.
Nodes that may be deployed in environments where they would benefit Nodes that may be deployed in environments where they would benefit
from such early congestion notification SHOULD implement [RFC3168]. from such early congestion notification SHOULD implement [RFC3168].
In such cases, the updates presented in [RFC8311] may also be
** BIS - but note draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-03, e.g., relevant.
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.
The current IPv6 Address Architecture is based on a 64-bit boundary The current IPv6 Address Architecture is based on a 64-bit boundary
for subnet prefixes. The reasoning behind this decision is for subnet prefixes. The reasoning behind this decision is
documented in [RFC7421]. documented in [RFC7421].
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. describes the benefits of and the options for doing so. Router
SHOULD support [RFC7934] for assigning multiple address to a host.
Host SHOULD support assigning multiple addresses as described in
[RFC7934].
Nodes SHOULD support the capability to be assigned a prefix per host Nodes SHOULD support the capability to be assigned a prefix per host
as documented in Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host as documented in [RFC8273]. Such an approach can offer improved host
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host]. Such an approach can isolation and enhanced subscriber management on shared network
offer improved host isolation and enhanced subscriber management on segments.
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. It is Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. It is
recommended, as described in [RFC8064], that unless there is a recommended, as described in [RFC8064], that unless there is a
specific requirement for MAC addresses to be embedded in an IID, specific requirement for MAC addresses to be embedded in an IID,
nodes follow the procedure in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based nodes follow the procedure in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based
addresses, rather than using [RFC4862]. Addresses generated through addresses, rather than using [RFC4862]. Addresses generated through
RFC7217 will be the same whenever a given device (re)appears on the RFC7217 will be the same whenever a given device (re)appears on the
same subnet (with a specific IPv6 prefix), but the IID will vary on same subnet (with a specific IPv6 prefix), but the IID will vary on
skipping to change at page 14, line 39 skipping to change at page 14, line 42
IID will see that IID remain the same on any visited network, even IID will see that IID remain the same on any visited network, even
though the network prefix part changes. Thus it is possible for 3rd though the network prefix part changes. Thus it is possible for 3rd
party devices such nodes communicate with to track the activities of party devices such nodes communicate with to track the activities of
the node as it moves around the network. Privacy Extensions for the node as it moves around the network. Privacy Extensions for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] address this concern by Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] address this concern by
allowing nodes to configure an additional temporary address where the allowing nodes to configure an additional temporary address where the
IID is effectively randomly generated. Privacy addresses are then IID is effectively randomly generated. Privacy addresses are then
used as source addresses for new communications initiated by the used as source addresses for new communications initiated by the
node. node.
[RFC7721] discusses general privacy issues with IPv6 addressing. General issues regarding privacy issues for IPv6 addressing are
discussed in [RFC7721].
RFC 4941 SHOULD be supported. In some scenarios, such as dedicated RFC 4941 SHOULD be supported. In some scenarios, such as dedicated
servers in a data center, it provides limited or no benefit, or may servers in a data center, it provides limited or no benefit, or may
complicate network management. Thus devices implementing this complicate network management. Thus devices implementing this
specification MUST provide a way for the end user to explicitly specification MUST provide a way for the end user to explicitly
enable or disable the use of such temporary addresses. enable or disable the use of such temporary addresses.
Note that RFC4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC, or Note that RFC4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC, or
of RFC7217-based SLAAC. of RFC7217-based SLAAC.
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 15, line 7
servers in a data center, it provides limited or no benefit, or may servers in a data center, it provides limited or no benefit, or may
complicate network management. Thus devices implementing this complicate network management. Thus devices implementing this
specification MUST provide a way for the end user to explicitly specification MUST provide a way for the end user to explicitly
enable or disable the use of such temporary addresses. enable or disable the use of such temporary addresses.
Note that RFC4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC, or Note that RFC4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC, or
of RFC7217-based SLAAC. of RFC7217-based SLAAC.
Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are
reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses. reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses.
Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more
details. details.
6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In
general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses
through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6, or both. There will be a wide through SLAAC, DHCPv6, or both. There will be a wide range of IPv6
range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment deployment models and differences in address assignment requirements,
requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for stateful address some of which may require DHCPv6 for stateful address assignment.
assignment. Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration via
configuration via DHCPv6. DHCPv6.
In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address In the absence of observed Router Advertisement messages, IPv6 nodes
assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration
configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of 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 disclosure of
identifying information. Section 5 of RFC7844 describes operational identifying information. Section 5 of RFC7844 describes operational
considerations on the use of such anonymity profiles. 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. Since Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] document MUST be implemented. [RFC8028]
[RFC8028] updates rule 5.5 from [RFC6724] implementations SHOULD updates rule 5.5 from [RFC6724]; implementations SHOULD implement
implement this rule. 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 18 skipping to change at page 16, line 18
[RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035]. [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035].
A6 Resource Records, which were only ever defined with Experimental A6 Resource Records, which were only ever defined with Experimental
status in [RFC3363], are now classified as Historic, as per status in [RFC3363], are now classified as Historic, as per
[RFC6563]. [RFC6563].
8. Configuring Non-Address Information 8. Configuring Non-Address Information
8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information 8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information
IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration DHCP [RFC3315] Specifies a mechanism for IPv6 nodes to obtain address
information (see Section 6.5) and to obtain additional (non-address) configuration information (see Section 6.5) and to obtain additional
configuration. If a host implementation supports applications or (non-address) configuration. If a host implementation supports
other protocols that require configuration that is only available via applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For specialized devices on which only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For
no such configuration need is present, DHCP may not be necessary. specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present,
DHCP may not be necessary.
An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to
obtain other configuration information. obtain other configuration information.
If an IPv6 node implements DHCP it MUST implement the DNS options
[RFC3646] as most deployments will expect this options are available.
8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway 8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway
There is no defined DHCPv6 Gateway option. There is no defined DHCPv6 Gateway option.
Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
are thus expected to determine their default router information and are thus expected to determine their default router information and
on-link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. on-link prefix information from received Router Advertisements.
8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 8106 8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 8106
Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that Router Advertisement Options have historically been limited to those
are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS that are critical to basic IPv6 functionality. Originally, DNS
configuration was not included as an RA option, and DHCP was the configuration was not included as an RA option, and DHCP was the
recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time, recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time,
the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now
generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without
having access to a working DNS resolver, 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
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes.
Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational
procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate
management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level
of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly, of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly,
deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can
significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular
security approach. security approach.
IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it IPsec either can provide end-to-end security between nodes or or can
possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of) provide channel security (for example, via a site-to-site IPsec VPN),
communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes. making it possible to provide secure communication for all (or a
IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual subset of) communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of
TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc. internet nodes. IPsec has two standard operating modes, Tunnel-mode
and Transport-mode. In Tunnel-mode, IPsec provides network-layer
security and protects an entire IP packet by encapsulating the
orginal IP packet and then pre-pending a new IP header. In
Transport-mode, IPsec provides security for the transport-layer (and
above) by encapsulating only the transport-layer (and above) portion
of the IP packet (i.e., without adding a 2nd IP header).
Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such
usage has limited applicability and is not recommended. usage has limited applicability and is not recommended.
A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today
(e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH), (e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH), SSL
etc.) No one approach has emerged as an ideal technology for all VPNS, etc.) No one approach has emerged as an ideal technology for
needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the ideal all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the
security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace the ideal security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace
others. the others.
Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the
key management approach of IKE. This document updates that key management approach of IKE. This document updates that
recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture [RFC4301] recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture [RFC4301]
a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture
requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both
manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default
automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC7296]. automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC7296].
This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types
skipping to change at page 21, line 26 skipping to change at page 21, line 30
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)" [RFC8247]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC8247]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2
MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8247] and/or any future MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8247] and/or any future
updates or replacements to [RFC8247]. updates or replacements to [RFC8247].
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 detailed act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss detailed
routing-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.
Further recommendations on router-specific functionality can be found Further recommendations on router-specific functionality can be found
in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs]. 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 (MLDv2) [RFC3810]). The
Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever such
that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are implemented. See protocols that mandate its use are implemented. See Section 5.11.
Section 5.11.
14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
Section 7 of [RFC6275] includes some mobility-specific extensions to Section 7 of [RFC6275] includes some mobility-specific extensions to
Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5, Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5,
even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality. even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality.
skipping to change at page 22, line 16 skipping to change at page 22, line 16
A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide
configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared
link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site. link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site.
Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different
links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers. links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers.
In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a
single LAN or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together single LAN or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together
with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is
one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC7084]). However, there is one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC7084]). There is no need
no need for relay agents in such scenarios. for relay agents in such scenarios.
In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or
service provider networks, the use of DHCP requires some level of service provider networks, the use of DHCP requires some level of
configuration, in order to configure relay agents, DHCP servers, etc. configuration, in order to configure relay agents, DHCP servers, etc.
In such environments, the DHCP server might even be run on a In such environments, the DHCP server might even be run on a
traditional server, rather than as part of a router. traditional server, rather than as part of a router.
Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP
server functionality on routers is optional. However, routers server functionality on routers is optional. However, routers
targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described
skipping to change at page 23, line 8 skipping to change at page 23, line 8
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].
If an IPv6 node is concerned about the impact of IPv6 message power If an IPv6 node is concerned about the impact of IPv6 message power
consumption, it MAY want to implement the recommendations in consumption, it SHOULD want to implement the recommendations in
[RFC7772]. [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].
16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules 16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules
IPv6 MIB have been updated since the last release of the document, IPv6 MIBs have been updated since the last release of the document;
[RFC8096] obseletes several MIBs, the nodes need to not support any [RFC8096] obseletes several MIBs, which nodes need no longer support.
longer.
The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that
support a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent. support a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent.
16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB 16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB
The IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes The IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes
that support an SNMP agent. that support an SNMP agent.
16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
skipping to change at page 26, line 14 skipping to change at page 26, line 14
20. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 20. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434
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. Restructured sections 1. Restructured sections
2. Added 6LoWPAN to link layers. 2. Added 6LoWPAN to link layers as it has some deployment.
3. Removed DOD IPv6 Profile updates.
4. Updated to state MLDv2 support is a MUST.
5. Require DNS RA Options, RFC8106 is a MUST. 3. Removed DOD IPv6 Profile as it hasn't been updated.
6. Added section on constrained devices. 4. Updated to MLDv2 support to a MUST since nodes are restricted if
MLDv1 is used.
7. Added text on RFC7934, address availability to hosts. 5. Require DNS RA Options so SLAAC-only devices can get DNS,
RFC8106 is a MUST.
8. Added text on RFC7844, anonymity profiles for DHCPv6 clients. 6. Require RFC3646 DNS Options for DHCPv6 implementations.
9. mDNS and DNS-SD added. 7. Added section on constrained devices.
10. Added RFC8028 as a SHOULD. 8. Added text on RFC7934, address availability to hosts (SHOULD).
11. Added ECN RFC3168 as a SHOULD. 9. Added text on RFC7844, anonymity profiles for DHCPv6 clients.
12. Added reference to RFC7123. 10. mDNS and DNS-SD added as updated service discovery.
13. Removed Jumbograms RFC2675. 11. Added RFC8028 as a SHOULD as a method for solving multi-prefix
network
14. Updated RFC2460 to 8200. 12. Added ECN RFC3168 as a SHOULD, since recent reports have shown
this as useful, and added a note on RFC8311, which is related.
15. Updated RFC1981 to 8201. 13. Added reference to RFC7123 for Security over IPv4-only networks
16. Updated RFC1981 to 8201. 14. Removed Jumbograms RFC2675 as they aren't deployed.
17. Updated RFC7321 to 8221. 15. Updated Obseleted RFCs to the new version of the RFC including
2460, 1981, 7321, 4307
18. Updated RFC4307 to 8247. 16. Added RFC7772 for power comsumptions considerations
19. Added RFC7772 for power comsumptions 17. Added why /64 boundries for more detail - RFC 7421
20. Added why /64 boundries - RFC 7421 18. Added a Unique IPv6 Prefix per Host to support currently
deployed IPv6 networks
21. Added a Unique IPv6 PRefix per Host 19. Clarified RFC7066 was snapshot for 3GPP
22. Clarified RFC7066 was snapshot for 3GPP
23. Updated 4191 as a MUST, SHOULD for Type C Host. 20. Updated 4191 as a MUST, SHOULD for Type C Host as it helps solve
multi-prefix problem
24. Removed IPv6 over ATM 21. Removed IPv6 over ATM since there aren't many deployments
25. Added a note in Section 6.6 for RFC6724 Section 5.5/ 22. Added a note in Section 6.6 for RFC6724 Section 5.5/
26. Added MUST for BCP 198 23. Added MUST for BCP 198 for forwarding IPv6 packets
27. Added reference to draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs 24. Added reference to draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs as it has more
recommendations for a Router
28. Added reference to RFC8064 25. Added reference to RFC8064 for stable address creation.
29. Made RFC8028 normative 26. Added text on protection from excessive EH options
30. Added text on protection from excessive EH options 27. Added text on dangers of 1280 MTU UDP, esp. wrt DNS traffic
31. Added text on dangers of 1280 MTU UDP, esp. wrt DNS traffic 28. Added text to clarify RFC8200 behaviour for unrecognized EHs or
unrecognized ULPs
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 35, line 23 skipping to change at page 35, line 23
Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221, Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8221, October 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8221, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8221>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8221>.
[RFC8247] Nir, Y., Kivinen, T., Wouters, P., and D. Migault, [RFC8247] Nir, Y., Kivinen, T., Wouters, P., and D. Migault,
"Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance "Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance
for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 8247, DOI 10.17487/RFC8247, September 2017, RFC 8247, DOI 10.17487/RFC8247, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8247>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8247>.
22.2. Informative References [RFC8311] Black, D., "Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) Experimentation", RFC 8311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8311, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8311>.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host] 22.2. Informative References
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] [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs]
Kahn, Z., Brzozowski, J., and R. White, "Requirements for Kahn, Z., Brzozowski, J., and R. White, "Requirements for
IPv6 Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-00 (work in IPv6 Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-01 (work in
progress), May 2017. progress), January 2018.
[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,
<https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
skipping to change at page 36, line 30 skipping to change at page 36, line 30
[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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3542>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3542>.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.
[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,
<https://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, <https://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
skipping to change at page 37, line 45 skipping to change at page 37, line 49
[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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC4890] Davies, E. and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering
ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4890, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4890>.
[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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
skipping to change at page 39, line 35 skipping to change at page 39, line 41
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8096>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8096>.
[RFC8273] Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix
per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8273>.
[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 40, line 4 skipping to change at page 40, line 14
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
Intel Intel
Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara, CA
USA USA
Email: john.loughney@gmail.com Email: john.loughney@gmail.com
Timothy Winters Timothy Winters
University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire, Interoperability Lab (UNH-IOL)
InterOperability Laboratory Durham, NH
Durham NH
United States United States
Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu
 End of changes. 74 change blocks. 
131 lines changed or deleted 160 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/