draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09.txt   rfc8504.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force T. Chown Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Chown
Internet-Draft Jisc Request for Comments: 8504 Jisc
Obsoletes: 6434 (if approved) J. Loughney BCP: 220 J. Loughney
Intended status: Best Current Practice Intel Obsoletes: 6434 Intel
Expires: January 17, 2019 T. Winters Category: Best Current Practice T. Winters
UNH-IOL ISSN: 2070-1721 UNH-IOL
July 16, 2018 January 2019
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09
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 memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 8200 . . . . . . . . . 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. Protecting a node from excessive EH options . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Protecting a Node from Excessive Extension Header Options 8
5.4. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 10 5.5. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 11
5.6. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 11 5.6. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . . . . 11
5.7. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.7. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.7.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7.2. Minimum MTU considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.7.2. Minimum MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) -
4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 RFC 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 5.9. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes -
4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.10. First-Hop Router Selection - RFC 8028 . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 . 12 5.11. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 3810 . 13
5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 . . . . 13 5.12. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) - RFC 3168 . . . . 13
6. Addressing and Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Addressing and Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . . . 13 6.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . . . 13
6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . . . 13 6.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . . . 14 6.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . . . 14
6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - 6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 -
RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 15
6.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 16
6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . . . 16 6.6. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . . . 16
7. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Configuring Non-Address Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Configuring Non-address Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. DHCP for Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway . . . . . . . . 17 8.2. Router Advertisements and Default Gateway . . . . . . . . 17
8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS 8.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration - RFC 8106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Configuration - RFC 8106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host 8.4. DHCP Options versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Service Discovery Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Service Discovery Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and 10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . 18 11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . . 19
11.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . 18 11.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . 19
12. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 14. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . 22 14.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . 22
14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 22 14.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 22
14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 22 14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 23
14.4. IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding - BCP 14.4. IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding -
198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 BCP 198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 15. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16. IPv6 Node Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16. IPv6 Node Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . 23 16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . 24
16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 16.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet 16.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.1.3. Interface MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 16.1.3. Interface MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.2. YANG Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 16.2. YANG Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
16.2.2. Interface Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . 24 16.2.2. Interface Management YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . 25
17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
19. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
19.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . 25 19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
19.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . 25 19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . 25 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
20. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix B. Changes from RFC 4294 to RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . 39
21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
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 4, line 21 skipping to change at page 4, line 29
Although this document points to different specifications, it should Although this document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular
requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many
specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may
not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both
client and server behavior in the same specification, while many client and server behavior in the same specification, while many
implementations will be focused on only one of those roles. implementations will be focused on only one of those roles.
This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a
device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range device to provide useful Internet service and considers a broad range
of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range
of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this
document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is
perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to
define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific
usage and deployment environments. For example, this document does usage and deployment environments. As an example, this document does
not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment
scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. As
example, NIST has defined profiles for specialized requirements for another example, NIST has defined profiles for specialized
IPv6 in target environments (see [USGv6]). requirements for IPv6 in target environments (see [USGv6]).
As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact
usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: "Be that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: "Be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others" [RFC0793]. others" [RFC793].
1.1. Scope of This Document 1.1. Scope of This Document
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.
1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes 1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes
From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC8200], From "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 IPv6 node that is not a router. IPv6 host - any IPv6 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
show here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document 3. Abbreviations Used in This Document
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 Multi-Access
ND Neighbor Discovery ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
4. Sub-IP Layer 4. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node MUST include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer An IPv6 node MUST include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation
should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the should include will depend upon what link layers are supported by the
hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant
IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on
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. We list here some of the Layer 2
layer 2 technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been developed. It
developed. It is provided for informational purposes only and may 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]
- 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 19 skipping to change at page 6, line 22
- 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]
- Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE - Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE
802.16 Networks [RFC5121] 802.16 Networks [RFC5121]
- IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072] - IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]
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 - Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers (see
Routers" [RFC4213] Section 3 of [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.
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 All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of sending and
receiving IPv6 packets; forwarding functionality MAY be supported. 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. headers.
IPv6 nodes MUST not create overlapping fragments. Also, when IPv6 nodes MUST not create overlapping fragments. Also, when
reassembling an IPv6 datagram, if one or more of its constituent reassembling an IPv6 datagram, if one or more of its constituent
fragments is determined to be an overlapping fragment, the entire fragments is determined to be an overlapping fragment, the entire
datagram (and any constituent fragments) MUST be silently discarded. datagram (and any constituent fragments) MUST be silently discarded.
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.
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
chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution. chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.
skipping to change at page 7, line 34 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not
processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery
path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes,
in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field
of the IPv6 header. of the IPv6 header.
Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
described in RFC 8200. Note that where Section 4 of RFC 8200 refers 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 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 header is not recognized by a node, that action applies whether the
value is an unrecognized Extension Header or an unrecognized upper value is an unrecognized extension header or an unrecognized upper-
layer protocol (ULP). layer protocol (ULP).
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these extension headers. An An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these extension headers. An
exception is Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which was deprecated by exception is Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which was deprecated by
[RFC5095] due to security concerns and which MUST be treated as an [RFC5095] due to security concerns and which MUST be treated as an
unrecognized routing type. unrecognized routing type.
Further, [RFC7045] adds specific requirements for processing of Further, [RFC7045] adds specific requirements for the 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.
As per RFC 8200, when a node fragments an IPv6 datagram, it MUST As per RFC 8200, when a node fragments an IPv6 datagram, it MUST
include the entire IPv6 Header Chain in the first fragment. The Per- include the entire IPv6 Header Chain in the first fragment. The Per-
Fragment headers MUST consist of the IPv6 header plus any extension Fragment headers MUST consist of the IPv6 header plus any extension
headers that MUST be processed by nodes en route to the destination, headers that MUST be processed by nodes en route to the destination,
that is, all headers up to and including the Routing header if that is, all headers up to and including the Routing header if
present, else the Hop-by-Hop Options header if present, else no present, else the Hop-by-Hop Options header if present, else no
extension headers. On reassembly, if the first fragment does not extension headers. On reassembly, if the first fragment does not
include all headers through an Upper-Layer header, then that fragment include all headers through an upper-layer header, then that fragment
SHOULD be discarded and an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 3, message SHOULD be discarded and an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 3, message
SHOULD be sent to the source of the fragment, with the Pointer field SHOULD be sent to the source of the fragment, with the Pointer field
set to zero. See [RFC7112] for a discussion of why oversized IPv6 set to zero. See [RFC7112] for a discussion of why oversized IPv6
Extension Header chains are avoided. Extension Header Chains are avoided.
Defining new IPv6 extension headers is not recommended, unless there Defining new IPv6 extension headers is not recommended, unless there
are no existing IPv6 extension headers that can be used by specifying are no existing IPv6 extension headers that can be used by specifying
a new option for that IPv6 extension header. A proposal to specify a a new option for that IPv6 extension header. A proposal to specify a
new IPv6 extension header MUST include a detailed technical new IPv6 extension header MUST include a detailed technical
explanation of why an existing IPv6 extension header can not be used explanation of why an existing IPv6 extension header can not be used
for the desired new function, and in such cases need to follow the for the desired new function, and in such cases, it needs to follow
format described in Section 8 of RFC 8200. For further background the format described in Section 8 of RFC 8200. For further
reading on this topic, see [RFC6564]. background reading on this topic, see [RFC6564].
5.3. Protecting a node from excessive EH options 5.3. Protecting a Node from Excessive Extension Header Options
As per RFC 8200, end hosts are expected to process all extension As 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
options it is willing to process. options it is willing to process.
A host MAY limit the number of consecutive PAD1 options in A host MAY limit the number of consecutive PAD1 options in
destination options or hop-by-hop options to seven. In this case, if destination options or hop-by-hop options to 7. In this case, if
the more than seven consecutive PAD1 options are present the packet there are more than 7 consecutive PAD1 options present, the packet
MAY be silently discarded. The rationale is that if padding of eight MAY be silently discarded. The rationale is that if padding of 8 or
or more bytes is required than the PADN option SHOULD be used. more bytes is required, then the PADN option SHOULD be used.
A host MAY limit number of bytes in a PADN option to be less than A host MAY limit the 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 8. 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 7, 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 8 bytes is the maximum alignment used in IPv6.
A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hop-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 [RFC8200]. 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 the destination options and hop-by-hop extension options allowed in the 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 8. The limits
limits for destination options and hop-by-hop options may be for destination options and hop-by-hop options may be separately
separately configurable. If a packet is received and the number of configurable. If a packet is received and the number of destination
destination or hop-by-hop options exceeds the limit, then the packet or hop-by-hop options exceeds the limit, then the packet SHOULD be
SHOULD be silently discarded. silently discarded.
A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum length of destination A host MAY impose a limit on the maximum length of Destination
options or hop-by-hop options extension header. This value SHOULD be Options or Hop-by-Hop Options extension headers. This value SHOULD
configurable and the default is to accept options of any length. If be configurable, and the default is to accept options of any length.
a packet is received and the length of destination or hop-by-hop If a packet is received and the length of the Destination or Hop-by-
options extension header exceeds the length limit, then the packet Hop Options extension header exceeds the length limit, then the
SHOULD be silently discarded. packet SHOULD be silently discarded.
5.4. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 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 MUST be supported with the
4861 states: noted exceptions below. RFC 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.,
Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or
mechanisms to implement those services will be specified (in the mechanisms to implement those services will be specified (in the
appropriate document covering the operation of IP over a appropriate document covering the operation of IP over a
particular link type). The services described in this document particular link type). The services described in this document
that are not directly dependent on multicast, such as Redirects, that are not directly dependent on multicast, such as Redirects,
next-hop determination, Neighbor Unreachability Detection, etc., Next-hop determination, Neighbor Unreachability Detection, etc.,
are expected to be provided as specified in this document. The are expected to be provided as specified in this document. The
details of how one uses ND on NBMA links are addressed in details of how one uses ND on NBMA links are addressed in
[RFC2491]. [RFC2491].
Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows: Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:
Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality. attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality.
Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
skipping to change at page 10, line 11 skipping to change at page 10, line 16
all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. NUD is not required all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. NUD is not required
for paths between routers. However, all nodes MUST respond to for paths between routers. However, all nodes MUST respond to
unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages. unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages.
[RFC7048] discusses NUD, in particular cases where it behaves too [RFC7048] discusses NUD, in particular cases where it behaves too
impatiently. It states that if a node transmits more than a certain impatiently. It states that if a node transmits more than a certain
number of packets, then it SHOULD use the exponential backoff of the number of packets, then it SHOULD use the exponential backoff of the
retransmit timer, up to a certain threshold point. retransmit timer, up to a certain threshold point.
Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the
receiving of Router Advertisements. The ability to understand receiving of Router Advertisements (RAs). The ability to understand
individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting individual RA options is dependent on supporting the functionality
the functionality making use of the particular option. making use of the particular option.
[RFC7559] discusses packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations, [RFC7559] discusses packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations
and requires that nodes MUST use a specific exponential backoff and requires that nodes MUST use a specific exponential backoff
algorithm for RS retransmissions. algorithm for retransmission of Router Solicitations.
All nodes MUST support the sending and receiving of Neighbor All nodes MUST support the sending and receiving of Neighbor
Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and
NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality. Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality.
Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily
for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting). Redirects for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting). Redirects
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 routers intended to of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on routers intended to be
deployed on core networks. They MAY be enabled by default on routers deployed on core networks. They MAY be enabled by default on routers
intended to support hosts on edge networks. intended to support hosts on edge networks.
As specified in [RFC6980], nodes MUST NOT employ IPv6 fragmentation
for sending any of the following Neighbor Discovery and SEcure
Neighbor Discovery messages: Neighbor Solicitation, Neighbor
Advertisement, Router Solicitation, Router Advertisement, Redirect,
or Certification Path Solicitation. Nodes MUST silently ignore any
of these messages on receipt if fragmented. See RFC 6980 for details
and motivation.
"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. threats from off-link attackers.
There have been relatively few implementations of SEND in common There have been relatively few implementations of SEND in common
operating systems and platforms since its publication in 2005, and operating systems and platforms since its publication in 2005; thus,
thus deployment experience remains very limited to date. deployment experience remains very limited to date.
At this time, support for SEND is considered optional. Due to the At this time, support for SEND is considered optional. Due to the
complexity in deploying SEND, and its heavyweight provisioning, its complexity in deploying SEND and its heavyweight provisioning, its
deployment is only likely to be considered where nodes are operating deployment is only likely to be considered where nodes are operating
in a particularly strict security environment. 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; 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.
5.7. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size 5.7. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size
5.7.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201 5.7.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 8201
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 12, line 12
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.
As described in RFC 8201, nodes implementing Path MTU Discovery and As described in RFC 8201, nodes implementing Path MTU Discovery and
sending packets larger than the IPv6 minimum link MTU are susceptible sending packets larger than the IPv6 minimum link MTU are susceptible
to problematic connectivity if ICMPv6 messages are blocked or not to problematic connectivity if ICMPv6 messages are blocked or not
transmitted. For example, this will result in connections that transmitted. For example, this will result in connections that
complete the TCP three-way handshake correctly but then hang when complete the TCP three-way handshake correctly but then hang when
data is transferred. This state is referred to as a black-hole data is transferred. This state is referred to as a black-hole
connection [RFC2923]. Path MTU Discovery relies on ICMPv6 Packet Too connection [RFC2923]. Path MTU Discovery relies on ICMPv6 Packet Too
Big (PTB) to determine the MTU of the path (and thus these MUST not Big (PTB) to determine the MTU of the path (and thus these MUST NOT
be filtered, as per the recommendation in [RFC4890]). be filtered, as per the recommendation in [RFC4890]).
An alternative to Path MTU Discovery defined in RFC 8201 can be found An alternative to Path MTU Discovery defined in RFC 8201 can be found
in [RFC4821], which defines a method for Packetization Layer Path MTU in [RFC4821], which defines a method for Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery (PLPMTUD) designed for use over paths where delivery of Discovery (PLPMTUD) designed for use over paths where delivery of
ICMPv6 messages to a host is not assured. ICMPv6 messages to a host is not assured.
5.7.2. Minimum MTU considerations 5.7.2. Minimum MTU Considerations
While an IPv6 link MTU can be set to 1280 bytes, it is recommended While an IPv6 link MTU can be set to 1280 bytes, it is recommended
that for IPv6 UDP in particular, which includes DNS operation, 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 that the other router does not, and
the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In choosing the "wrong" default router can result in reachability
order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191] failures. In order to resolve this scenario, IPv6 nodes MUST
and SHOULD implement the Type C host role defined in RFC4191. implement [RFC4191] and SHOULD implement the Type C host role defined
in 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].
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; 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 versions of this document only required MLDv1 ([RFC2710]) to Previous versions of this specification only required MLDv1 [RFC2710]
be implemented on all nodes. Since participation of any MLDv1-only to be implemented on all nodes. Since participation of any
nodes on a link require that all other nodeas on the link then MLDv1-only nodes on a link require that all other nodes on the link
operate in version 1 compatibility mode, the requirement to support then operate in version 1 compatibility mode, the requirement to
MLDv2 on all nodes was upgraded to a MUST. Further, SSM is now the support MLDv2 on all nodes was upgraded to a MUST. Further, SSM is
preferred multicast distribution method, rather than ASM. now the preferred multicast distribution method, rather than Any-
Source Multicast (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 sets a mark in the IP header in order to signal An ECN-aware router sets a mark in the IP header in order to signal
impending congestion, rather than dropping a packet. The receiver of impending congestion, rather than dropping a packet. The receiver of
the packet echoes the congestion indication to the sender, which can the packet echoes the congestion indication to the sender, which can
then reduce its transmission rate as if it detected a dropped packet. then reduce its transmission rate as if it detected a dropped packet.
Nodes SHOULD support [RFC3168] by implementing an interface for the Nodes SHOULD support ECN [RFC3168] by implementing an interface for
upper layer to access and set the ECN bits in the IP header. The the upper layer to access and by setting the ECN bits in the IP
benefits of using ECN are documented in [RFC8087]. header. The benefits of using ECN are documented in [RFC8087].
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].
Implementations MUST also support the Multicast flag updates Implementations MUST also support the multicast flag updates
documented in [RFC7371] documented in [RFC7371].
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 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (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. Routers describes the benefits of and the options for doing so. Routers
SHOULD support [RFC7934] for assigning multiple address to a host. SHOULD support [RFC7934] for assigning multiple addresses to a host.
Host SHOULD support assigning multiple addresses as described in A host SHOULD support assigning multiple addresses as described in
[RFC7934]. [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 [RFC8273]. Such an approach can offer improved host as documented in [RFC8273]. Such an approach can offer improved host
isolation and enhanced subscriber management on shared network isolation and enhanced subscriber management on shared network
segments. 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 Media Access Control (MAC) addresses to be
nodes follow the procedure in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based embedded in an Interface Identifier (IID), nodes follow the procedure
addresses, rather than using [RFC4862]. Addresses generated through in [RFC7217] to generate SLAAC-based addresses, rather than use
RFC7217 will be the same whenever a given device (re)appears on the [RFC4862]. Addresses generated using the method described in
[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
each subnet 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
skipping to change at page 14, line 37 skipping to change at page 14, line 50
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface. them to an interface.
All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from
Section 5.4 of RFC 4862: Section 5.4 of RFC 4862:
Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast
addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of
whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration, whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration,
DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following exceptions
noted therein]. [noted therein].
"Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429] "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429]
specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating
addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. RFC addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. RFC
4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce 4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce
the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly
move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize
transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains
optional at this time. optional at this time.
[RFC7527] discusses enhanced DAD, and describes an algorithm to [RFC7527] discusses enhanced DAD and describes an algorithm to
automate the detection of looped back IPv6 ND messages used by DAD. automate the detection of looped-back IPv6 ND messages used by DAD.
Nodes SHOULD implement this behaviour where such detection is Nodes SHOULD implement this behavior where such detection is
beneficial. beneficial.
6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941 6.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941
A node using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] to form a A node using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] to form a
globally unique IPv6 address using its MAC address to generate the globally unique IPv6 address that uses its MAC address to generate
IID will see that IID remain the same on any visited network, even the IID will see that the IID remains the same on any visited
though the network prefix part changes. Thus it is possible for 3rd network, even though the network prefix part changes. Thus, it is
party device to track the activities of the node they communicate possible for a third-party device to track the activities of the node
with, as that node moves around the network. Privacy Extensions for they communicate with, as that node moves around the network.
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] address this concern by Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
allowing nodes to configure an additional temporary address where the address this concern by allowing nodes to configure an additional
IID is effectively randomly generated. Privacy addresses are then temporary address where the IID is effectively randomly generated.
used as source addresses for new communications initiated by the Privacy addresses are then used as source addresses for new
node. communications initiated by the node.
General issues regarding privacy issues for IPv6 addressing are General issues regarding privacy issues for IPv6 addressing are
discussed in [RFC7721]. 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 it
complicate network management. Thus devices implementing this may 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 RFC 4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC or
of RFC7217-based SLAAC. independently of SLAAC that is based on RFC 7217.
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
skipping to change at page 15, line 51 skipping to change at page 16, line 20
deployment models and differences in address assignment requirements, deployment models and differences in address assignment requirements,
some of which may require DHCPv6 for stateful address assignment. some of which may require DHCPv6 for stateful address assignment.
Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration via Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address configuration via
DHCPv6. DHCPv6.
In the absence of observed Router Advertisement messages, IPv6 nodes In the absence of observed Router Advertisement messages, IPv6 nodes
MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration
information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of [RFC4862]. information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of [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 visited networks, DHCPv6 client anonymity profiles SHOULD be
be supported as described in [RFC7844] to minimise the disclosure of supported as described in [RFC7844] to minimize the disclosure of
identifying information. Section 5 of RFC7844 describes operational identifying information. Section 5 of RFC 7844 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. [RFC8028] Selection for IPv6 document [RFC6724] MUST be implemented. [RFC8028]
updates rule 5.5 from [RFC6724]; implementations SHOULD implement updates Rule 5.5 from [RFC6724]; implementations SHOULD 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 Section 5.3.1 of [RFC1034], with support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596]; - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596]; and
- Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) [RFC6891] to allow for DNS - Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) [RFC6891] to allow for DNS
packet sizes larger than 512 octets. packet sizes larger than 512 octets.
Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
[RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035]. [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035].
A6 Resource Records, which were only ever defined with Experimental A6 Resource Records [RFC2874] are classified as Historic per
status in [RFC3363], are now classified as Historic, as per [RFC6563]. These were defined with Experimental status in [RFC3363].
[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
DHCP [RFC3315] Specifies a mechanism for IPv6 nodes to obtain address DHCP [RFC3315] specifies a mechanism for IPv6 nodes to obtain address
configuration information (see Section 6.5) and to obtain additional configuration information (see Section 6.5) and to obtain additional
(non-address) configuration. If a host implementation supports (non-address) configuration. If a host implementation supports
applications or other protocols that require configuration that is applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For
specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present, specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present,
DHCP may not be necessary. 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 If an IPv6 node implements DHCP, it MUST implement the DNS options
[RFC3646] as most deployments will expect these options are [RFC3646] as most deployments will expect that these options are
available. 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 Advertisement Options have historically been limited to those Router Advertisement options have historically been limited to those
that are critical to basic IPv6 functionality. 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; 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
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: RAs and DHCP. RA options have
DHCP. RA options have been restricted to those deemed essential for been restricted to those deemed essential for basic network
basic network functioning and for which all nodes are configured with functioning and for which all nodes are configured with exactly the
exactly the same information. Examples include the Prefix same information. Examples include the Prefix Information Options,
Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, DHCP the MTU option, etc. On the other hand, DHCP has generally been
has generally been preferred for configuration of more general preferred for configuration of more general parameters and for
parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. Generally parameters that may be client specific. Generally speaking, however,
speaking, however, there has been a desire to define only one there has been a desire to define only one mechanism for configuring
mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than defining a given option, rather than defining multiple (different) ways of
multiple (different) ways of configuring the same information. configuring the same information.
One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same One issue with having multiple ways to configure the same information
information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one mechanism but
mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism. the network operator chooses a different mechanism. For "closed"
For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant environments, where the network operator has significant influence
influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what over what devices connect to the network and thus what configuration
configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to ensure that a
ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected particular mechanism is supported by all connected hosts. In more
hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices open environments, however, where arbitrary devices may connect
may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize (e.g., a Wi-Fi hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize
interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement
multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability. multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability.
9. Service Discovery Protocols 9. Service Discovery Protocols
[RFC6762] and [RFC6763] describe multicast DNS (mDNS) and DNS-Based Multicast DNS (mDNS) and DNS-based Service Discovery (DNS-SD) are
Service Discovery (DNS-SD) respectively. These protocols, described in [RFC6762] and [RFC6763], respectively. These protocols,
collectively commonly referred to as the 'Bonjour' protocols after often collectively referred to as the 'Bonjour' protocols after their
their naming by Apple, provide the means for devices to discover naming by Apple, provide the means for devices to discover services
services within a local link and, in the absence of a unicast DNS within a local link and, in the absence of a unicast DNS service, to
service, to exchange naming information. exchange naming information.
Where devices are to be deployed in networks where service dicovery Where devices are to be deployed in networks where service discovery
would be beneficial, e.g., for users seeking to discover printers or would be beneficial, e.g., for users seeking to discover printers or
display devices, mDNS and DNS-SD SHOULD be supported. display devices, mDNS and DNS-SD SHOULD be supported.
10. IPv4 Support and Transition 10. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
10.1. Transition Mechanisms 10.1. Transition Mechanisms
10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC 10.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers -
4213 RFC 4213
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213] If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213]
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
11. Application Support 11. Application Support
11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 11.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952
Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in
text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
skipping to change at page 19, line 7 skipping to change at page 19, line 32
There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not
mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly
relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementers, however, relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementers, however,
would be advised to consider providing a common API or reviewing would be advised to consider providing a common API or reviewing
existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to
applications. applications.
"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6 "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6
functionality used by typical applications. Implementers should note functionality used by typical applications. Implementers should note
that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by the that RFC 3493 has been picked up and further standardized by the
Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) [POSIX]. Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) [POSIX].
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6" "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6"
[RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by
diagnostic and other more specialized applications. diagnostic and other more specialized applications.
"IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides
facilities that allow an application to override the default Source facilities that allow an application to override the default Source
Address Selection rules of [RFC6724]. Address Selection rules of [RFC6724].
skipping to change at page 19, line 46 skipping to change at page 20, line 25
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents - home agents
- all IPv6 routers - all IPv6 routers
At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation
and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed
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- Additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed-mode IPv4
mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks [RFC5555]. 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, Mobility Support in IPv6
associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this [RFC6275], Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers
time. [RFC5555], and associated standards (such as Mobile IPv6 with IKEv2
and IPsec [RFC4877]) are considered a MAY at this time.
IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC7066] lists a snapshot of required IPv6 IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC7066] lists a snapshot of required IPv6
Functionalities at the time the document was published that would functionalities at the time the document was published that would
need to be implemented, going above and beyond the recommendations in need to be implemented, going above and beyond the recommendations in
this document. Additionally a 3GPP IPv6 Host MAY implement [RFC7278] this document. Additionally, a 3GPP IPv6 Host MAY implement
for delivering IPv6 prefixes on the LAN link. [RFC7278] to deliver IPv6 prefixes on the LAN link.
13. Security 13. Security
This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes. This section describes the security specification 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 either can provide end-to-end security between nodes or or can IPsec can provide either end-to-end security between nodes or channel
provide channel security (for example, via a site-to-site IPsec VPN), security (for example, via a site-to-site IPsec VPN), making it
making it possible to provide secure communication for all (or a possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of)
subset of) communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of Internet nodes.
internet nodes. IPsec has two standard operating modes, Tunnel-mode IPsec has two standard operating modes: Tunnel-mode and Transport-
and Transport-mode. In Tunnel-mode, IPsec provides network-layer mode. In Tunnel-mode, IPsec provides network-layer security and
security and protects an entire IP packet by encapsulating the protects an entire IP packet by encapsulating the original IP packet
orginal IP packet and then pre-pending a new IP header. In and then prepending a new IP header. In Transport-mode, IPsec
Transport-mode, IPsec provides security for the transport-layer (and provides security for the transport layer (and above) by
above) by encapsulating only the transport-layer (and above) portion encapsulating only the transport-layer (and above) portion of the IP
of the IP packet (i.e., without adding a 2nd IP header). packet (i.e., without adding a second 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), TLS (e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH), TLS
VPNS, etc.) No one approach has emerged as an ideal technology for VPNS, etc.). No single approach has emerged as an ideal technology
all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the for all needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the
ideal security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace ideal security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace
the 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. RFC 6434 updated that recommendation
recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture [RFC4301] by making support of the IPsec architecture [RFC4301] a SHOULD for
a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture all IPv6 nodes, and this document retains that recommendation. Note
requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both that the IPsec Architecture requires the implementation of both
manual and automatic key management. Currently, the recommended manual and automatic key management (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301).
automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC7296]. Currently, the recommended 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
and environments where approaches to security other than IPsec can be and environments where approaches to security other than IPsec can be
justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a
very limited number or type of applications, and an application- very limited number or type of applications, and an application-
specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management
or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices may run or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices may run
on extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full on extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full
IPsec Architecture is not justified. IPsec Architecture is not justified.
Because most common platforms now support IPv6 and have it enabled by Because most common platforms now support IPv6 and have it enabled by
default, IPv6 security is an issue for networks that are ostensibly default, IPv6 security is an issue for networks that are ostensibly
IPv4-only; see [RFC7123] for guidance on this area. IPv4 only; see [RFC7123] for guidance on this area.
13.1. Requirements 13.1. Requirements
"Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be
supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture
requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) the implementation of both requires the implementation of both manual and automatic key
manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default management (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]). 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" [RFC8221]. IPv6 nodes implementing the Requirements for ESP and AH [RFC8221]. IPv6 nodes implementing the
IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8221]. 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 8221 is replaced or updated in migration to new algorithms, as RFC 8221 is replaced or updated in
the future. the future.
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 Algorithm Implementation Requirements for
Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC8247]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 ESP and AH [RFC8247]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2 MUST conform to
MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC8247] and/or any future the requirements in [RFC8247] and/or any future updates or
updates or replacements to [RFC8247]. 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.
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 (MLDv2) [RFC3810]). The [RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLDv2) [RFC3810]). The
Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever such Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever such
protocols that mandate its use are implemented. See Section 5.11. protocols that mandate its use are implemented. See 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.
14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 14.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
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
skipping to change at page 23, line 7 skipping to change at page 23, line 39
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 14.4. IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding - BCP 198
Forwarding nodes MUST conform to BCP 198 [RFC7608] and thus IPv6 Forwarding nodes MUST conform to BCP 198 [RFC7608]; thus, IPv6
implementations of nodes that may forward packets MUST conform to the implementations of nodes that may forward packets MUST conform to the
rules specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC4632]. rules specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC4632].
15. Constrained Devices 15. Constrained Devices
The target for this document is general IPv6 nodes. In this Section, The focus of this document is general IPv6 nodes. In this section,
we briefly discuss considerations for constrained devices. we briefly discuss considerations for constrained devices.
In the case of constrained nodes, with limited CPU, memory, bandwidth In the case of constrained nodes, with limited CPU, memory, bandwidth
or power, support for certain IPv6 functionality may need to be or power, support for certain IPv6 functionality may need to be
considered due to those limitations. While the requirements of this considered due to those limitations. While the requirements of this
document are RECOMMENDED for all nodes, including constrained nodes, document are RECOMMENDED for all nodes, including constrained nodes,
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, particularly where this may impact other nodes
the same link, e.g., only supporting MLDv1 will affect other nodes. on the same link, e.g., only supporting MLDv1 will affect other
nodes.
The IETF 6LowPAN (IPv6 over Low Power LWPAN) WG defined six RFCs, The IETF 6LowPAN (IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network)
including a general overview and problem statement ([RFC4919], the WG produced six RFCs, including a general overview and problem
means by which IPv6 packets are transmitted over IEEE 802.15.4 statement [RFC4919] (the means by which IPv6 packets are transmitted
networks [RFC4944] and ND optimisations for that medium [RFC6775]. over IEEE 802.15.4 networks [RFC4944] and ND optimizations for that
medium [RFC6775]).
IPv6 nodes that are battery-powered SHOULD implement the IPv6 nodes that are battery powered SHOULD implement the
recommendations in [RFC7772]. recommendations in [RFC7772].
16. IPv6 Node Management 16. IPv6 Node 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.
Existing network management protocols include SNMP [RFC3411], NETCONF Existing network management protocols include SNMP [RFC3411], NETCONF
[RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. [RFC6241], and RESTCONF [RFC8040].
16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules 16.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules
[RFC8096] clarifies the obsoleted status of various IPv6-specific MIB The obsoleted status of various IPv6-specific MIB modules is
modules. clarified in [RFC8096].
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 an 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)
The IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an The IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent. SNMP agent.
16.1.3. Interface MIB 16.1.3. Interface MIB
The Interface MIB [RFC2863] SHOULD be supported by nodes the support The Interface MIB [RFC2863] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support
an SNMP agent. an SNMP agent.
16.2. YANG Data Models 16.2. YANG Data Models
The following YANG data models SHOULD be supported by nodes that The following YANG data models SHOULD be supported by nodes that
support a NETCONF or RESTCONF agent. support a NETCONF or RESTCONF agent.
16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model 16.2.1. IP Management YANG Model
The IP Management YANG Model [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] SHOULD be The IP Management YANG Model [RFC8344] SHOULD be supported by nodes
supported by nodes that support NETCONF or RESTCONF. that support NETCONF or RESTCONF.
16.2.2. Interface Management YANG Model 16.2.2. Interface Management YANG Model
The Interface Management YANG Model [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis] The Interface Management YANG Model [RFC8343] SHOULD be supported by
SHOULD be supported by nodes that support NETCONF or RESTCONF. nodes that support NETCONF or RESTCONF.
17. Security Considerations 17. Security Considerations
This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet, This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet,
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 has no IANA actions.
19. Authors and Acknowledgments
19.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors
would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Dave Thaler, Tom Herbert, Erik
Kline, Mohamed Boucadair, and Michayla Newcombe for their
contributions.
19.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434
Ed Jankiewicz and Thomas Narten were named authors of the previous
iteration of this document, RFC6434.
For this version of the document, the authors thanked Hitoshi Asaeda,
Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman,
Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave
Thaler.
19.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294
The original version of this document (RFC 4294) was written by the
IPv6 Node Requirements design team, which had the following members:
Jari Arkko, Marc Blanchet, Samita Chakrabarti, Alain Durand, Gerard
Gastaud, Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino, Atsushi Inoue, Masahiro Ishiyama,
John Loughney, Rajiv Raghunarayan, Shoichi Sakane, Dave Thaler, and
Juha Wiljakka.
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to
Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to
Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.
20. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434
There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the
changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
list of all changes.
1. Restructured sections
2. Added 6LoWPAN to link layers as it has some deployment.
3. Removed DOD IPv6 Profile as it hasn't been updated.
4. Updated to MLDv2 support to a MUST since nodes are restricted if
MLDv1 is used.
5. Require DNS RA Options so SLAAC-only devices can get DNS,
RFC8106 is a MUST.
6. Require RFC3646 DNS Options for DHCPv6 implementations.
7. Added RESTCONF and NETCONF as possible options to Network
management.
8. Added section on constrained devices.
9. Added text on RFC7934, address availability to hosts (SHOULD).
10. Added text on RFC7844, anonymity profiles for DHCPv6 clients.
11. mDNS and DNS-SD added as updated service discovery.
12. Added RFC8028 as a SHOULD as a method for solving multi-prefix
network
13. Added ECN RFC3168 as a SHOULD
14. Added reference to RFC7123 for Security over IPv4-only networks
15. Removed Jumbograms RFC2675 as they aren't deployed.
16. Updated Obseleted RFCs to the new version of the RFC including
2460, 1981, 7321, 4307
17. Added RFC7772 for power comsumptions considerations
18. Added why /64 boundries for more detail - RFC 7421
19. Added a Unique IPv6 Prefix per Host to support currently
deployed IPv6 networks
20. Clarified RFC7066 was snapshot for 3GPP
21. Updated 4191 as a MUST, SHOULD for Type C Host as it helps solve
multi-prefix problem
22. Removed IPv6 over ATM since there aren't many deployments
23. Added a note in Section 6.6 for RFC6724 Section 5.5/
24. Added MUST for BCP 198 for forwarding IPv6 packets
25. Added reference to RFC8064 for stable address creation.
26. Added text on protection from excessive EH options
27. 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
29. Removed dated email addresses from design team acknowledgements
for RFC 4294.
21. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the
changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
list of all changes.
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an
applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.
2. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding
references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAYs.
3. Changed Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs.
4. Added section on SEND (it is a MAY).
5. Revised section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more
nuance to recommendation.
6. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading overall
recommendation to a SHOULD.
7. Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD.
8. Added background section on DHCP versus RA options, added SHOULD
recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs (RFC6106), and
cleaned up DHCP recommendations.
9. Added recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5
of [RFC6275].
10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942].
11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented.
12. Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
it a MUST to implement.
13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
14. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about [RFC3363].
15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
including [RFC4443], [RFC4291], [RFC3596], and [RFC4213].
16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There
is no consensus at present on how to process these flags, and
discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].
17. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
18. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
19. Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
it a MUST to implement.
20. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
[RFC5790].
21. Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].
22. Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.
22. References 19. References
22.1. Normative References 19.1. 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,
<https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 29, line 48 skipping to change at page 26, line 43
[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, <https://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,
<https://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
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005, RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<https://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
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005, Extensions", RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://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
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security S. 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,
<https://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,
<https://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
skipping to change at page 32, line 33 skipping to change at page 29, line 28
<https://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,
<https://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,
<https://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
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over C. 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,
<https://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,
<https://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",
skipping to change at page 33, line 21 skipping to change at page 30, line 16
Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112, Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis] [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and
Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface T. Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
Management", draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03 (work in
progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis]
Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-03 (work in progress),
January 2018.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[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,
<https://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,
skipping to change at page 34, line 43 skipping to change at page 31, line 29
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., [RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC8221] Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and T. [RFC8221] Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and
Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation T. Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security
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 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [RFC8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>.
19.2. Informative References
[RFC793] 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
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. DOI 10.17487/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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.
[RFC2874] Crawford, M. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support
IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2874, July 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2874>.
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery", [RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery",
RFC 2923, DOI 10.17487/RFC2923, September 2000, RFC 2923, DOI 10.17487/RFC2923, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2923>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2923>.
[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, <https://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
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) T. 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,
<https://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
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", W. 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 [RFC3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646, Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>. <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
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
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,
<https://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,
<https://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,
<https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>. November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.
[RFC4294] Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4294, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4294>.
[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,
<https://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, <https://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
skipping to change at page 38, line 14 skipping to change at page 35, line 14
[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,
<https://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,
<https://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
Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 S. 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,
<https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6563>. 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6563>.
[RFC6980] Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation
with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", RFC 6980,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6980, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6980>.
[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, <https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
skipping to change at page 39, line 48 skipping to change at page 37, line 13
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8087>.
[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 [RFC8273] Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix
per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017, per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8273>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8273>.
[POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information [POSIX] IEEE, "Information Technology -- Portable Operating System
Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), Interface (POSIX(R)) Base Specifications, Issue 7", IEEE
ISO/IEC 9945:2009", <http://www.ieee.org>. Std 1003.1-2017, DOI: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153,
January 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8277153>.
[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",
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.500-267Ar1>. NIST SP500-267, July 2008,
<https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/usgv6-program>.
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 6434
There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the
changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
list of all changes.
1. Restructured sections.
2. Added 6LoWPAN to link layers as it has some deployment.
3. Removed the Downstream-on-Demand (DoD) IPv6 Profile as it hasn't
been updated.
4. Updated MLDv2 support to a MUST since nodes are restricted if
MLDv1 is used.
5. Required DNS RA options so SLAAC-only devices can get DNS; RFC
8106 is a MUST.
6. Required RFC 3646 DNS Options for DHCPv6 implementations.
7. Added RESTCONF and NETCONF as possible options to network
management.
8. Added a section on constrained devices.
9. Added text on RFC 7934 to address availability to hosts
(SHOULD).
10. Added text on RFC 7844 for anonymity profiles for DHCPv6
clients.
11. Added mDNS and DNS-SD as updated service discovery.
12. Added RFC 8028 as a SHOULD as a method for solving a multi-
prefix network.
13. Added ECN RFC 3168 as a SHOULD.
14. Added reference to RFC 7123 for security over IPv4-only
networks.
15. Removed Jumbograms (RFC 2675) as they aren't deployed.
16. Updated obsoleted RFCs to the new version of the RFC, including
RFCs 2460, 1981, 7321, and 4307.
17. Added RFC 7772 for power consumptions considerations.
18. Added why /64 boundaries for more detail -- RFC 7421.
19. Added a unique IPv6 prefix per host to support currently
deployed IPv6 networks.
20. Clarified RFC 7066 was a snapshot for 3GPP.
21. Updated RFC 4191 as a MUST and the Type C Host as a SHOULD as
they help solve multi-prefix problems.
22. Removed IPv6 over ATM since there aren't many deployments.
23. Added a note in Section 6.6 for Rule 5.5 from RFC 6724.
24. Added MUST for BCP 198 for forwarding IPv6 packets.
25. Added a reference to RFC 8064 for stable address creation.
26. Added text on the protection from excessive extension header
options.
27. Added text on the dangers of 1280 MTU UDP, especially with
regard to DNS traffic.
28. Added text to clarify RFC 8200 behavior for unrecognized
extension headers or unrecognized ULPs.
29. Removed dated email addresses from design team acknowledgements
for [RFC4294].
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 4294 to RFC 6434
There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the
changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
list of all changes.
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an
applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.
2. Significantly updated the section on mobility protocols; added
references and downgraded previous SHOULDs to MAYs.
3. Changed the Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs.
4. Added a section on SEND (it is a MAY).
5. Revised the section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more
nuance to the recommendation.
6. Completely revised the IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading the
overall recommendation to a SHOULD.
7. Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to a SHOULD.
8. Added a background section on DHCP versus RA options, added a
SHOULD recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs (RFC 6106),
and cleaned up the DHCP recommendations.
9. Added the recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and
7.5 of [RFC6275].
10. Added a pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942].
11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented.
12. Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
it a MUST to implement.
13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
14. Removed the mention of delegation name (DNAME) from the
discussion about [RFC3363].
15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
including [RFC3596], [RFC4213], [RFC4291], and [RFC4443].
16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There
is no consensus at present on how to process these flags, and
discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].
17. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
18. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
19. Updated the MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
[RFC5790].
20. Added a SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences
and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].
21. Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.
Acknowledgments
o Acknowledgments (Current Document)
The authors would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Dave Thaler, Tom
Herbert, Erik Kline, Mohamed Boucadair, and Michayla Newcombe for
their contributions and many members of the 6man WG for the inputs
they gave.
o Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434
RFC 6434 was authored by Ed Jankiewicz, John Loughney, and Thomas
Narten.
The authors of RFC 6434 thank Hitoshi Asaeda, Brian Carpenter, Tim
Chown, Ralph Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman, Bob Hinden, Paul
Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave Thaler for their
comments. In addition, the authors thank Mark Andrews for
comments and corrections on DNS text and Alfred Hoenes for
tracking the updates to various RFCs.
o Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294
RFC 4294 was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team,
which had the following members: Jari Arkko, Marc Blanchet, Samita
Chakrabarti, Alain Durand, Gerard Gastaud, Jun-ichiro Itojun
Hagino, Atsushi Inoue, Masahiro Ishiyama, John Loughney, Rajiv
Raghunarayan, Shoichi Sakane, Dave Thaler, and Juha Wiljakka.
The authors of RFC 4294 thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments.
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 United States of America
Email: john.loughney@gmail.com Email: john.loughney@gmail.com
Timothy Winters Timothy Winters
University of New Hampshire, Interoperability Lab (UNH-IOL) University of New Hampshire, Interoperability Lab (UNH-IOL)
Durham, NH Durham, NH
United States United States of America
Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu
 End of changes. 140 change blocks. 
507 lines changed or deleted 536 lines changed or added

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