draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-06.txt   draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-07.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: Best Current Practice Intel Intended status: Best Current Practice Intel
Expires: September 4, 2018 T. Winters Expires: September 4, 2018 T. Winters
UNH-IOL UNH-IOL
March 3, 2018 March 3, 2018
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-06 draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-07
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 7, line 10 skipping to change at page 7, line 10
See [RFC5722] for more information. See [RFC5722] for more information.
As recommended in [RFC8021], nodes MUST NOT generate atomic As recommended in [RFC8021], nodes MUST NOT generate atomic
fragments, i.e., where the fragment is a whole datagram. As per fragments, i.e., where the fragment is a whole datagram. As per
[RFC6946], if a receiving node reassembling a datagram encounters an [RFC6946], if a receiving node reassembling a datagram encounters an
atomic fragment, it should be processed as a fully reassembled atomic fragment, it should be processed as a fully reassembled
packet, and any other fragments that match this packet should be packet, and any other fragments that match this packet should be
processed independently. processed independently.
[RFC6946] discusses IPv6 atomic fragments, and recommends that IPv6
atomic fragments are processed independently of any other fragments,
to protect against fragmentation-based attacks.
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
discussed in [RFC7739]. discussed in [RFC7739].
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
 End of changes. 2 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 1 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/