[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 4294

Network Working Group                                    John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft                                                        Nokia
                                                               July 1, 2002

Expires: December 29, 2002



                         IPv6 Node Requirements
                draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt




Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2003.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
   that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
   Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
   well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
   deployments.



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction
   1.1  Scope of this Document
   1.2  Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups
   2.   Abbreviations Used in This Document
   3.   Sub-IP Layer
   3.1  IPv6 over Foo
   4.   IP Layer
   4.1  General
   4.2  Neighbor Discovery
   4.3  Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
   4.4  ICMPv6
   4.5  Addressing
   4.6  Other
   5.   Transport and DNS
   5.1  Transport Layer
   5.2  DNS
   5.3  Other
   6.   Transition
   6.1  Transition Mechanisms
   7.   Mobility
   8.   Security
   8.1  Basic Architecture
   8.2  Security Protocols
   8.3  Transforms and Algorithms
   8.4  Key Management Method
   9.   Router Functionality
   9.1  General
   10.  Network Management
   10.1 MIBs
   11.  Security Considerations
   12.  References
   12.1 Normative
   12.2 Non-Normative
   13.  Authors and Acknowledgements
   14.  Editor's Address
   Appendix A: Change history
   Appendix B: List of Specifications Included
   Appendix C: Specifications Not Included











Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


1. Introduction

   The goal of this document is to define a minimal set of functionality
   required for an IPv6 node.  Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional
   or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to
   implement the requirements listed in this document.

   The document is written to minimize protocol discussion in this
   document but instead make pointers to RFCs.  In case of any
   conflicting text, this document takes less precedence than the
   normative RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this
   document.

   During the process of writing this document, if any issue is raised
   regarding the normative RFCs, the consensus is, whenever possible, to
   fix the RFCs not to add text in this document. However, it may be
   useful to include this information in an appendix for informative
   purposes.

   Although the document points to different specifications, it should
   be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
   smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
   multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.

   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
   that they should adhere to John Postel's Robustness Principle:

      Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
      others. [RFC793].

1.1 Scope of this Document

   IPv6 covers many specifications.  It is intended that IPv6 will be
   deployed in many different situations and environments.  Therefore,
   it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes, in order
   to ensure interoperability.

   This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
   requirements specified here.

1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups

   This document defines three classes of conformance for an IPv6 node:
   Unconditionally Mandatory, Conditionally Mandatory and
   Unconditionally Optional.  The three classes of conformance are
   defined in section 1.2.




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we
   have the following definitions:

      Description of an IPv6 Node

       - a device that implements IPv6

      Description of an IPv6 router

       - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to
         itself.

      Description of an IPv6 Host

       - any node that is not a router.

   Usage of IPv6 nodes

      TBD

   Conformance Group

      A conformance group is a collection of related behavioral
      specifications that appear in standards.  A single RFC may contain
      multiple independent pieces of functionality that belong to
      separate conformance groups. If a node claims compliance to a
      given conformance group, that means it implements all of the
      mandatory behavior therein, including implementing all MUSTs, and
      none of the MUST NOTs.

   Unconditionally Mandatory

      If a node claims compliance to this document, then it must support
      the behavior specified within each conformance group listed of
      type unconditionally mandatory.

   Conditionally Mandatory

      Conditionally mandatory groups include those which are mandatory
      only if a particular condition is true, such as whether a specific
      type of hardware is present, or whether another given group is
      implemented.  When a conditionally mandatory specification or
      group is described, the condition will also be described.  A given
      RFC or portion thereof can sometimes appear in multiple
      conformance groups, with different conditions.

   Unconditionally Optional




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


      Behavior that is neither unconditionally mandatory nor
      conditionally mandatory is unconditionally optional for compliance
      to this document.

2. Abbreviations Used in This Document

   AH    Authentication Header

   DAD   Duplicate Address Detection

   ESP   Encapsulating Security Payload

   ICMP  Internet Control Message Protocol

   MIB   Management Information Base

   MTU   Maximum Transfer Unit

   NA    Neighbor Advertisement

   ND    Neighbor Discovery

   NS    Neighbor Solicitation

   NUD   Neighbor Unreachability Detection

3. Sub-IP Layer

   An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
   sending packet.  By definition, these specifications are
   conditionally mandatory, based upon what layer-2 is used.  In
   general, it is reasonable to be a conformant IPv6 node and NOT
   support some legacy interfaces.

3.1 A.K.A - IPv6 over Foo

3.1.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks

   Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] is
   conditionally mandatory if the node supports Ethernet interfaces.

3.1.2 RFC2467 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI
      Networks

   A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks
   [RFC-2467] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports FDDI
   interfaces.




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


3.1.3 RFC2470 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token
      Ring Networks

   A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring
   Networks [RFC-2470] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports
   token ring interfaces.

3.1.4 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP

   IPv6 over PPP [RFC-2472] is conditionally mandatory if the node
   supports PPP.

3.1.5 RFC2491 - IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks

   IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks [RFC2491] is
   conditionally mandatory if the node supports NBMA network interfaces.

3.1.6 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks

   IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] is conditionally mandatory if the
   node supports ATM interfaces.  Additionally, the specification
   states:

      A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
      of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
      SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.

3.1.7 RFC2497 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
      ARCnet Networks

   A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks
   [RFC2497] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports ARCnet
   network interfaces.

3.1.8 RFC2529 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 Domains without
      Explicit Tunnels

   Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 Domains without Explicit
   Tunnels [2529] is unconditionally optional.

3.1.9 RFC2590 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
      Specification

   Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification
   [RFC2590] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports Frame Relay
   interfaces.

4. IP Layer



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


4.1 General

4.1.1 RFC2460 - Internet Protocol Version 6

   The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This
   specification is unconditionally mandatory.

   Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
   extensions must be processed as described in RFC 2460.

   The node must follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.

   Nodes must always be able to receive fragment headers. However, if it
   does not implement path MTU discovery it may not need to send
   fragment headers.  However, nodes that do not implement transmission
   of fragment headers need to impose limitation to payload size of
   layer 4 protocols.

   The capability of being a final destination is unconditionally
   mandatory, whereas the capability of being an intermediate
   destination is unconditionally optional (i.e. - host functionality
   vs. router functionality).

   RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
   headers.

      A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
      following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
      Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
      Security Payload. [RFC2460]

   It is unconditionally mandatory for an IPv6 node to process these
   headers.  It should be noted that there is some discussion about the
   use of Routing Headers and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused
   by them.

4.2 Neighbor Discovery

4.2.1 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6

   Neighbor Discovery is conditionally mandatory.  RFC 2461 states:

      "Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating
      IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
      types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
      its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA
      links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those
      services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


      the operation of IP over a particular link type).  The services
      described in this document that are not directly dependent on
      multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor
      Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as
      specified in this document.  The details of how one uses ND on
      NBMA links is an area for further study."

   Some detailed analysis of Neighbor discovery follows:

   Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
   attached link. Router Discovery is unconditionally mandatory for
   implementations. However, the implementation MAY support disabling
   this feature.

   Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
   that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
   Prefix discovery is unconditionally mandatory for implementation with
   option to disable this function.

   Address resolution is how nodes determine the link-layer address of
   an on-link destination (e.g., a neighbor) given only the
   destination's IP address. It is conditionally mandatory
   implementation depending on the link type support. Address Resolution
   for point-to-point links may not be mandatory; working group
   clarification is needed on this.

   Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) is conditionally mandatory.
   It is unconditionally mandatory for all paths between hosts and
   neighboring nodes. It is unconditionally optional for paths between
   routers.  It is unconditionally optional for multicast. However, when
   a node receives a unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (that
   may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST respond to it (i.e. send a unicast
   Neighbor Advertisement).

   Duplicate Address Detection is unconditionally mandatory (RFC2462
   section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses).

   Sending Router Solicitation is unconditionally mandatory for host
   implementation, with a configuration option to disable this
   functionality.

   Receiving and processing Router Advertisements is unconditionally
   mandatory for host implementation, with a configuration option to
   disable this functionality. The ability to understand specific Router
   Advertisements is dependent on supporting the specification where the
   RA is specified.

   Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   Advertisement (NA) are unconditionally mandatory. NS and NA messages
   are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).

   Redirect Function is conditionally mandatory. If the node is a
   router, Redirect Function is unconditionally mandatory.

4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size

4.3.1 RFC1981 - Path MTU Discovery

   Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] is unconditionally optional.  The IPv6
   specification [RFC-2460] states in section 5 that "a minimal IPv6
   implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
   sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit implementation
   of Path MTU Discovery."

   If Path MTU Discovery is not implemented then the sending packet size
   is limited to 1280 octets (standard limit in [RFC-2460]).

4.3.2 RFC2675 - IPv6 Jumbograms

   IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] is unconditionally optional.

4.4 ICMPv6

4.1.1 RFC2463 - ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)

   ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] is unconditionally mandatory.

4.5 Addressing

   Currently, there is discussion on-going on support for site-local
   addressing.

4.5.1 RFC2373 - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture

   The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-2373] is a mandatory part of
   IPv6. Currently, this specification is being updated by [ADDRARCHv3].

4.5.2 RFC2462 - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration

   IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
   This specification is unconditionally mandatory for nodes that are
   hosts.

   It is unconditionally mandatory for nodes that are routers to
   generate link local addresses as described in this specification.




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                      [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   From 2462:

      The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
      only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
      information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
      configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
      routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
      described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
      successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
      described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
      them to an interface.

   Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is unconditionally mandatory for
   all interface addresses assigned to the node.

4.5.3 RFC3041 - Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6

   Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
   is unconditionally optional.  Currently, there is discussion of the
   applicability of temporary addresses.

4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6

   Default Address Selection for IPv6 [DEFADDR] is conditionally
   mandatory, if a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or
   a node has more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical)
   configured.

   The rules specified in the document are the only MUST to implement
   portion of the architecture.  There is no requirement that a node be
   able to be part of more than one zone.

4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration

   IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC2462] defines stateless
   address autoconfiguation.  However, it does state that in the absence
   of routers, hosts MUST attempt to use stateful autoconfiguration.
   There is also reference to stateful address autoconfiguration being
   defined elsewhere. Additionally, DHCP [DHCP] states that it is on
   option for stateful address autoconfiguation.

   From the current set of specification, it is not clear the level of
   support that is needed for statefull Address Autoconfiguration.

4.6 Other

4.6.1 RFC2473 - Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] conditionally mandatory, with the
   condition being implementing the mobile node functionality or Home
   Agent functionality of Mobile IP [MIPv6].

4.6.2 RFC2710 - Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6

   Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] is Conditionally Mandatory,
   where the condition is if the node joins any multicast groups other
   than the all-nodes-on-link group (which will always be the case if it
   runs ND or DAD on the link).

   There has been some discussion that hosts may not be able to depend
   on MLD if there is no connection to a router, therefore this may not
   be Mandatory.  Further discussion is needed on this.

5. Transport Layer and DNS

5.1 Transport Layer

5.1.1 RFC2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms

   This specification is conditionally mandatory, if Jumbograms are
   implemented [RFC-2675].  One open issue is if this document needs to
   be updated, as it refers to an obsoleted document.

5.2 DNS

   Support for DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035] and [RFC-
   1886], is unconditionally optional.  Not all nodes will need to
   resolve addresses.

5.2.1 RFC2874 - DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and
      Renumbering

   DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering is
   unconditionally optional

5.2.2 RFC2732 - Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's

   RFC 2732 is conditionally mandatory if the node uses URL's.

5.3 Other

5.3.1 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)

   The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 [DHCPv6] is
   unconditionally optional.




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


6. Transition

6.1 Transition Mechanisms

   IPv6 nodes should use native address instead of transition-based
   addressing.

6.1.1 RFC2893 - Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers

   If an IPv6 node implement dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893
   is unconditionally mandatory.

   This document is currently being updated.

7. Mobility

   Currently, the MIPv6 specification [MIPv6] is nearing completion.
   Mobile IPv6 places some requirements on IPv6 nodes.  This document is
   not meant to prescribe behaviors, but to capture the consensus of
   what should be done for IPv6 nodes with respect to Mobile IPv6.

   The Mobile IP specification [MIPv6] specifies the following classes
   of functionality: Correspondent Node, Mobile Node, Route Optimization
   functionality and Home Agent Functionality.

   Correspondent Node functionality is Unconditionally Mandatory.

   Mobile Node functionality is Conditionally Mandatory for nodes that
   need to maintain sessions while changing their point of attachment to
   the Internet.

   Route Optimization functionality is conditionally mandatory for
   hosts.  Route Optimization is unconditionally optional for routers.
   There is ongoing discussion about the role of Route Optimization.
   This document should list some of the benefits of Route Optimization.

   Home Agent functionality is Unconditionally Optional.

8. Security

   This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.
   Other issues that IPsec cannot resolve are described in the security
   considerations.

8.1 Basic Architecture

   Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] is
   unconditionally mandatory except of the following description.



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   Requirements that this section describes explicitly MUST refer to
   RFC-2401.

   IPsec transport mode is unconditionally mandatory.

   IPsec tunnel mode is unconditionally mandatory.

      [DISCUSSION: Network administrators want to make separated
      networks to be a single network by using a site-local address
      space.  The routers should be implemented both IPsec transport
      mode and a generic tunnel in this case, but if there is no
      statement what it should be, the administrators must use IPsec
      tunnel mode because it is used now in IPv4 network.]

   Applying single security association of ESP [RFC-2406] to a packet is
   unconditionally mandatory, although RFC-2401 defines four types of
   combination of security associations that must be supported by
   compliant IPsec hosts.

   Applying single security association of AH is conditionally mandatory
   if AH [RFC-2402] is implemented.

   The following packet type is conditionally mandatory if AH is
   combined with ESP: IP|AH|ESP|ULP.

   The summary of Basic Combinations of Security Associations in section
   4.5 of RFC-2401 is:

   case 1-2 is unconditionally mandatory.
   case 1-1 and 1-3 is conditionally mandatory if AH is implemented.
   case 1-4, 1-5, 2-5 and 4 is conditionally optional if IPsec tunnel
        mode is implemented.
   case 2-4 is conditionally optional if IPsec tunnel mode and AH is
        implemented.
   case 3 is not applicable to this document.

8.2 Security Protocols

   ESP [RFC-2406] is unconditionally mandatory even when ESP is not
   used. AH [RFC-2402] is unconditionally mandatory also.

   AH is need if there is data in IP header to be protected, for
   example, an extension header.

   In practice, ESP can provide the same security services as AH and as
   well as confidentiality, thus there is no real need for AH.

8.3 Transforms and Algorithms



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV [RFC-2405] is
   conditionally mandatory if you need to have interoperability with old
   implementation by using DES-CBC.  Note the IPsec WG recommends not
   using this algorithm. 3DES-CBC is conditionally mandatory so that the
   part of ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] is unconditionally
   mandatory.  Note that the IPsec WG also recommends not using this
   algorithm. AES-128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] is unconditionally
   mandatory but there is on-going work in the IPsec WG. NULL Encryption
   algorithm [RFC-2410] is conditionally mandatory. It is only for
   providing integrity service, and also for debugging use.

   The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2404], is
   unconditionally mandatory.  This MUST be used if AH is implemented.
   The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2403], is
   unconditionally mandatory.  This MUST be used if AH is implemented.
   The "HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec" [ipsec-ciph-
   sha-256] is unconditionally mandatory, but it is being discussed in
   the IPsec WG. An implementer MUST refer to Keyed-Hashing for Message
   Authentication [RFC-2104].

8.4 Key Management Method

   Manual keying is unconditionally mandatory.

   Automated SA and Key Management is conditionally mandatory for the
   use of the anti-replay features of AH and ESP, and to accommodate
   on-demand creation of SAs, session-oriented keying.

   IKE [RFC-2407, RFC-2408, RFC-2409] is unconditionally optional for
   unicast traffic.  Note that the IPsec WG is working on the successor
   to IKE [SOI].

9. Router Functionality

   This section defines general considerations for IPv6 nodes that act
   as routers.  It is for future study if this document, or a separate
   document is needed to fully define IPv6 router requirements.
   Currently, this section does not discuss routing protocols.

9.1 General

9.1.1 RFC2711 - IPv6 Router Alert Option

   The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is conditionally mandatory if the
   node performs packet forwarding at the IP layer (i.e. - the node is a
   router).

9.1.2 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation is
   unconditionally mandatory.

10. Network Management

   Network Management, is generally not a requirement for IPv6 nodes.
   However, for IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management
   may be the only possibility to control these hosts.

10.1 MIBs

   In a general sense, MIBs can be considered conditionally mandatory
   when the node supports an SNMP agent. This section is for further
   study. It should be also noted that these specifications are being
   updated updated.

10.1.1 RFC2452 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the Transmission
       Control Protocol


   TBA

10.1.2 RFC2454 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram
       Protocol


   TBA

10.1.3 RFC2465 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: Textual
       Conventions and General Group


   TBA

10.1.4 RFC2466 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: ICMPv6
       Group


   TBA

10.1.5 RFC2851 - Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses


   TBA

10.1.6 RFC3019 - IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
       Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   TBA

11. Security Considerations

   This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but
   implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
   security features to ensure security on the Internet.  "IP Security
   Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read.

   The security considerations in RFC2401 describes,

      The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
      Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].

   IPsec cannot cover all of security requirement for IPv6 node. For
   example, IPsec cannot protect the node from kind of DoS attack. The
   node may need a mechanism of IPv6 packet filtering functionality, and
   also may need a mechanism of rate limitation.

   The use of ICMPv6 without IPsec can expose the nodes in question to
   various kind of attacks including Denial-of-Service, Impersonation,
   Man-in-the-Middle, and others.  Note that only manually keyed IPsec
   can protect some of the ICMPv6 messages that are related to
   establishing communications. This is due to chick en-and-egg problems
   on running automated key management protocols on top of IP. However,
   manually keyed IPsec may require a large number of SAs in order to
   run on a large network due to the use of many addresses during ICMPv6
   Neighbor Discovery.

   An implementer should also consider the analysis of anycast
   [ANYCAST].

12. References

12.1 Normative


   [ADDRARCHv3]   Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
                  Architecture", Work in progress.


   [DEFADDR]      Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", Work
                  in progress.


   [DHCPv6]       Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
                  for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Work in progress.




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   [MIPv6]        Johnson D. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in
                  IPv6", Work in progress.


   [RFC-1035]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
                  specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.


   [RFC-1886]     Thomson, S. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to sup-
                  port IP version 6, RFC 1886, December 1995.


   [RFC-1981]     McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU
                  Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.


   [RFC-2104]     Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC:
                  Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
                  February 1997.


   [RFC-2373]     Hinden, R. and Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
                  Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.


   [RFC-2401]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for
                  the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.


   [RFC-2402]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R.,  "IP Authentication
                  Header", RFC 2402, November 1998.


   [RFC-2403]     Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within
                  ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.


   [RFC-2404]     Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1
                  within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.


   [RFC-2405]     Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
                  Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.


   [RFC-2406]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security
                  Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   [RFC-2407]     Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
                  Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.


   [RFC-2408]     Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner,
                  J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management
                  Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.


   [RFC-2409]     Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key
                  Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.


   [RFC-2410]     Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm
                  and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998


   [RFC-2451]     Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
                  Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998


   [RFC-2460]     Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver-
                  sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.


   [RFC-2461]     Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor
                  Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December
                  1998.


   [RFC-2462]     Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address
                  Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462.


   [RFC-2463]     Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Pro-
                  tocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.


   [RFC-2472]     Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC
                  2472, December 1998.


   [RFC-2473]     Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling
                  in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.


   [RFC-2710]     Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast
                  Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


                  1999.


   [RFC-2711]     Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert
                  Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.

12.2 Non-Normative


   [ANYCAST]      Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Any-
                  cast" Work in Progress.


   [SOI]          C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Pro-
                  gress.


   [RFC-793]      Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
                  August 1980.


   [RFC-1034]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili-
                  ties", RFC 1034, November 1987.


   [RFC-2147]     Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC
                  2147, May 1997.


   [RFC-2452]     M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the
                  Transmission Control Protocol", RFC2452, December
                  1998.


   [RFC-2454]     M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the
                  User Datagram Protocol, RFC2454", December 1998.


   [RFC-2464]     Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Eth-
                  ernet Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998.


   [RFC-2465]     D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for
                  IP Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group",
                  RFC2465, December 1998.


   [RFC-2466]     D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


                  IP Version 6: ICMPv6 Group", RFC2466, December 1998.


   [RFC-2467]     M. Crawford, "A Method for the Tranmission of IPv6
                  Packets over FDDI Networks", RFC2467, December 1998.


   [RFC-2470]     M. Crawford, T. Narten, S. Thomas, "A Method for the
                  Tranmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks",
                  RFC2470, December 1998.


   [RFC-2491]     G. Armitage, P. Schulter, M. Jork, G. Harter, "IPv6
                  over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
                  RFC2491, January 1999.


   [RFC-2492]     G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6
                  over ATM Networks", RFC2492, January 1999.


   [RFC-2497]     I. Souvatzis, "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6
                  Packets over ARCnet Networks", RFC2497, January 1999.


   [RFC-2529]     Carpenter, B. and Jung, C., "Transmission of IPv6 over
                  IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529,
                  March 1999.


   [RFC-2590]     A. Conta, A. Malis, M. Mueller, "Transmission of IPv6
                  Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC
                  2590, May 1999.


   [RFC-2675]     Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo-
                  grams", RFC 2675, August 1999.


   [RFC-2732]     R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for
                  Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December
                  1999.


   [RFC-2851]     M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J.
                  Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Net-
                  work Addresses", RFC2851, June 2000.




Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   [RFC-2874]     Crawford, M. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to Sup-
                  port IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC
                  2874, July 2000.


   [RFC-2893]     Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms
                  for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.


   [RFC-3019]     B. Haberman, R. Worzella, "IP Version 6 Management
                  Information Base for the Multicast Listener Discovery
                  Protocol", RFC3019, January 2001.


   [RFC-3041]     Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for
                  Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC
                  3041, January 2001.


   [IPv6-RH]      P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
                  Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002.

13. Authors and Acknowledgements

   This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:

      Jari Arkko
      [jari.arkko@ericsson.com]

      Marc Blanchet
      [Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca]

      Samita Chakrabarti
      [Samita.Chakrabarti@eng.sun.com]

      Alain Durand
      [Alain.Durand@Sun.com]

      Gerard Gastaud
      [Gerard.Gastaud@alcatel.fr]

      Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
      [itojun@iijlab.net]

      Atsushi Inoue
      [inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]

      Masahiro Ishiyama



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


      [masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]

      John Loughney
      [John.Loughney@Nokia.com]

      Okabe Nobuo
      [nov@tahi.org]

      Rajiv Raghunarayan
      [raraghun@cisco.com]

      Shoichi Sakane
      [shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com]

      Dave Thaler
      [dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]

      Juha Wiljakka
      [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]


   The authors would like to thank Adam Machalek, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments.

14. Editor's Contact Information

   Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com) or to:

      John Loughney
      Nokia Research Center
      It„merenkatu 11-13
      00180 Helsinki
      Finland

      Phone: +358 50 483 6242
      Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com


Appendix A: Change history

   The following is a list of changes since the previous version.

       - Small updates based upon feedback from the IPv6 mailing list.
       - Refomated chapters.
       - Added Appendix B - List of RFCs.

   TBD

Appendix B: List of RFCs



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   This is a list of RFC to look at during the editing process.  They are classified by generic categories and by level of potential conformance.  The * denotes some sections of the specification have lesser level of conformance required.

   RFC                  Section    Conformance
   ========================================================
   RFC-1034             5.2.1      unconditionally optional
   RFC-1035             5.2.1      unconditionally optional
   RFC-1886             5.2.1      unconditionally optional
   RFC-1981             4.3.1      unconditionally optional
   RFC-2104             8.3        conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2147             5.1.1      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2373             4.5.1      unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2401             8.1        unconditionally mandatory *
   RFC-2402             8.1        conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2403             8.3        unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2404             8.3        unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2405             8.3        conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2406             8.1        unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2407             8.4        unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2408             8.4        unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2409             8.4        unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2410             8.3        unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2451             8.3        unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2452             10.1.1     conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2454             10.1.2     conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2460             4.1.1      unconditionally mandatory *
   RFC-2461             4.2.1      unconditionally mandatory *
   RFC-2462             4.5.2      unconditionally mandatory *
   RFC-2463             4.5.1      unconditionally mandatory
   RFC-2464             3.1.1      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2465             10.1.3     conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2466             10.1.4     conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2467             3.1.2      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2470             3.1.3      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2472             3.1.4      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2473             4.6.1      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2491             3.1.5      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2492             3.1.6      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2497             3.1.7      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2529             3.1.8      unconditionally optional
   RFC-2590             3.1.9      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2675             4.3.2      unconditionally optional
   RFC-2710             4.6.2      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2711             9.1.1      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2732             5.2.2      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2851             10.1.5     conditionally mandatory
   RFC-2874             5.3.1      unconditionally optional
   RFC-2893             6.1.1      conditionally mandatory
   RFC-3019             10.1.6     conditionally mandatory



Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                                                 July 2002


   RFC-3041             4.5.3      unconditionally optional


Appendix C: Specifications Not Included

   Here is a list of documents considered, but not included in this document.  In general, Information documents are not considered to place requirements on implementations.  Experimental documents are just that, experimental, and cannot place requirements on the general behavior of IPv6 nodes.

      Upper Protocols
         2428 FTP Extensions For IPv6 And NATs

      Compression
         2507 IP Header Compression
         2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers For Low-Speed Serial Links
         2509 IP Header Compression Over PPP

      Informational
         1752 The Recommendation For The IP Next Generation Protocol API RFCs
         1881 IPv6 Address Allocation Management.
         1887 An Architecture For Ipv6 Unicast Address Allocation
         2104 HMAC: Keyed-Hashing For Message Authentication
         2374 An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format.
         2450 Proposed TLA And NLA Assignment Rules.

      Experimental
         2874 DNS Extensions To Support Ipv6 Address Aggregation
         2471 IPv6 Testing Address Allocation.

      Other
         2526 Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast
         2732 Format For Literal IPv6 Addr In URLs
         2894 Router Renumbering
         3122 Extensions To IPv6 ND For Inverse Discovery



















Loughney (editor)             July 1, 2002                     [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/