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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RFC 4214

Network Working Group                                         F. Templin
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Expires: August 15, 2004                                      T. Gleeson
                                                      Cisco Systems K.K.
                                                               M. Talwar
                                                               D. Thaler
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                       February 16, 2004


        Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)
                    draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-19.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to 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 August 15, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   The Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) connects
   IPv6 hosts/routers over IPv4 networks. ISATAP views the IPv4 network
   as a link layer for IPv6 and views other nodes on the network as
   potential IPv6 hosts/routers. ISATAP supports automatic tunneling and
   a tunnel interface management abstraction similar to the Non-
   Broadcast, Multiple Access (NBMA) and ATM Permanent/Switched Virtual
   Circuit (PVC/SVC) models.



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  ISATAP Conceptual Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Node Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Addressing Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Configuration and Management Requirements  . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Automatic Tunneling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   10. Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   12. IAB Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   13. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   A.  Major Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   B.  The IPv6 Minimum MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   C.  Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet Address Block . 24
   D.  Proposed ICMPv6 Code Field Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 29




























Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


1. Introduction

   This document specifies a simple mechanism called the Intra-Site
   Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) that connects IPv6
   [RFC2460] hosts/routers over IPv4 [STD5] networks. Dual-stack
   (IPv6/IPv4) nodes use ISATAP to automatically tunnel IPv6 packets in
   IPv4, i.e., ISATAP views the IPv4 network as a link layer for IPv6
   and views other nodes on the network as potential IPv6 hosts/routers.

   ISATAP enables automatic tunneling whether global or private IPv4
   addresses are used, and supports a tunnel interface management
   abstraction similar to the Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access (NBMA)
   [RFC2491] and ATM Permanent/Switched Virtual Circuit (PVC/SVC)
   [RFC2492] models.

   The main objectives of this document are to: 1) describe the ISATAP
   conceptual model, 2) specify addressing requirements, 3) discuss
   configuration and management requirements, 4) specify automatic
   tunneling using ISATAP, 5) specify operational aspects of IPv6
   Neighbor Discovery, and 6) discuss IANA and Security considerations.

   This document surveys all IETF v6ops WG documents current up to
   February 16, 2004.

2. Requirements

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
   document, are to be interpreted as described in [BCP14].

   This document also makes use of internal conceptual variables to
   describe protocol behavior and external variables that an
   implementation must allow system administrators to change. The
   specific variable names, how their values change, and how their
   settings influence protocol behavior are provided to demonstrate
   protocol behavior. An implementation is not required to have them in
   the exact form described here, so long as its external behavior is
   consistent with that described in this document.

3. Terminology

   The terminology of [STD3][RFC2460][RFC2461][RFC3582] applies to this
   document. The following additional terms are defined:

   ISATAP node:
      a node that implements the specifications in this document.





Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   ISATAP daemon:
      an ISATAP node's server application that uses an API for control
      plane signaling and tunnel interface configuration/management.

   ISATAP driver:
      an ISATAP node's network module that provides an API for control
      plane signaling and tunnel interface configuration/management.
      Also provides a packet encapsulation/decapsulation engine, and an
      embedded gateway function (see: [STD3], section 3.3.4.2).

   logical interface:
      an IPv6 address or a configured tunnel interface associated with
      an ISATAP interface (see: [STD3], section 3.3.4.1).

   ISATAP interface:
      an ISATAP node's point-to-multipoint interface that provides a
      control plane interface for the ISATAP daemon and a forwarding
      plane nexus for its associated logical interfaces.

   ISATAP interface identifier:
      an IPv6 interface identifier with an embedded IPv4 address
      constructed as specified in section 6.1.

   ISATAP address:
      an IPv6 unicast address assigned on an ISATAP interface with an
      on-link prefix and an ISATAP interface identifier.

   locator:
      an IPv4 address-to-interface mapping, i.e., a node's IPv4 address
      and the index for it's associated interface.

   locator set:
      a set of locators associated with a tunnel interface, where each
      locator in the set belongs to the same site.

















Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


4. ISATAP Conceptual Model

   ISATAP interfaces are advertising IPv6 interfaces that provide a
   point-to-multipoint abstraction for IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling.  They
   provide a forwarding plane nexus (used by the ISATAP driver) for
   their associated logical interfaces. They also provide a control
   plane interface (used by the ISATAP daemon) for tunnel configuration
   signaling.

   The ISATAP driver encapsulates packets for transmission according to
   parameters associated with its logical interfaces. It also determines
   the correct interface to receive each tunneled packet after
   decapsulation, and provides an embedded gateway function.

   The ISATAP daemon configures and manages tunnels via an API provided
   by the ISATAP driver. Each such configured tunnel provides a nexus
   for multiple applications using IPv6 addresses as application
   identifiers.  Each such application identifier provides a nexus for
   multiple sessions.  In summary, each configured tunnel provides a
   point-to-point connection between peers that can support multiple
   applications and multiple instances of each application.






























Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   The following example diagram depicts the ISATAP conceptual model:

                     <-- IPv6-enabled applications -->
      +----+  +---------------------------------------------+
      |I  D|  |                  IPv6 Stack                 |
      |S  a|  |                                             |
      |A  e|  |            <-- IPv6 addresses -->           |
      |T  m|  | +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+     +--+ |
      |A  o|  | |v6| |v6| |v6| |v6| |v6| |v6| |v6| ... |v6| |
      |P  n|  | +--+ +-++ ++-+ ++-+ ++++ ++-+ +-++     +-++ |
      +-+--+  +---/---/----|----|---/-|--|-\----|--------|--+
        |        /   /     |    |  /  |  |  \   |        |    <----+
        x       /   /      |    | /   |  |   \  |        |      I  |
               /   /    +--++  +++-+  +--++  ++-++     +-+-+    S  |
              /   /     |tun|  |tun|  |tun|  |tun| ... |tun|    A  |
             /   /      +-+-+  +--++  +-+-+  ++--+     +-+-+    T  |
            /   /         |        \    |    /           |      A  |
      x    /   /   x      |     x   \   |   /   x        |      P  |
      |   /   /    |      |     |    \  |  /    |        |         |
      +--+---+---+ +------+---+ +-----+-+-++    +--------+-+    D  |
      |ISATAP I/F| |ISATAP I/F| |ISATAP I/F| .. |ISATAP I/F|    r  |
      | (site 1) | | (site 1) | | (site 3) |    | (site n) |    i  |
      +---+----+++ +-++-----+-+ +-+-----+-++    +------+---+    v  |
          |    | \  / |     |     |     |  \           |        e  |
          |    |  \/  |     |     |     |   \          |        r  |
          |    |  /\  |     |     |     |    \         |      <----+
      +---|----|-/--\-|-----|-----|-----|-----\ -------|---+
      | +-+-+ +++-+ +++-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +--++    +-+-+ |
      | |loc| |loc| |loc| |loc| |loc| |loc| |loc| .. |loc| |
      | +-+-+ +--++ +---+ +---+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+    +-+-+ |
      |   |     /  /     /         \    |    /        /    |
      |   |    /  / +---+           \   |   /        /     |
      |   |   /  / /                 \  |  /        /      |
      |   |  /  / /       IPv4 Stack  \ | /        /       |
      +-+-+-+--+-+--+--------+--+------+++------+-+------+-+
        |IPv4 I/F|  |IPv4 I/F|  |IPv4 I/F| .... |IPv4 I/F|
        |(site 1)|  |(site 2)|  |(site 3)|      |(site n)|
        +--------+  +--------+  +--------+      +--------+


5. Node Requirements

   ISATAP nodes observe the common functionality requirements in
   [NODEREQ] and the DNS requirements in ([MECH], section 2.2). They
   also implement the additional features specified in this document.






Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


6. Addressing Requirements

6.1 ISATAP Interface Identifiers

   ISATAP interface identifiers are constructed in Modified EUI-64
   format ([ADDR], appendix A). They are formed by concatenating the
   24-bit IANA OUI (00-00-5E), the 8-bit hexadecimal value 0xFE, and a
   32-bit IPv4 address in network byte order.

   The format for ISATAP interface identifiers is given below (where 'u'
   is the IEEE univeral/local bit, 'g' is the IEEE group/individual bit,
   and the 'm' bits represent the concatenated IPv4 address):

   |0              1|1              3|3              4|4              6|
   |0              5|6              1|2              7|8              3|
   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
   |000000ug00000000|0101111011111110|mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm|mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm|
   +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

   When the IPv4 address is known to be globally unique, the 'u' bit is
   set to 1; otherwise, the 'u' bit is set to 0 ([ADDR], section 2.5.1).
   See: Appendix C for additional non-normative details.

6.2 ISATAP Addresses

   Any IPv6 unicast address ([ADDR], section 2.5) that contains an
   ISATAP interface identifier constructed as specified in section 6.1
   and an on-link prefix on an ISATAP interface is considered an ISATAP
   address.

6.3 Multicast/Anycast

   ISATAP interfaces recognize a node's required IPv6 multicast/anycast
   addresses ([ADDR], section 2.8).

   For IPv6 multicast addresses of interest to local applications,
   ISATAP nodes join the corresponding Organization-Local Scope IPv4
   multicast groups ([RFC2529], section 6) on each interface that
   appears in an ISATAP interface's locator set (see: section 7.2).

   IPv6 multicast addresses of interest include a node's required
   multicast addresses, and may also include e.g, the
   'All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers' and 'All_DHCP_Servers' multicast
   addresses (i.e., if the node is configured as a DHCPv6 server
   [RFC3315][RFC3633]), etc.

   Considerations for IPv6 anycast appear in [ANYCAST].




Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


6.4 Source/Target Link Layer Address Options

   Source/Target Link Layer Address Options ([RFC2461], section 4.6.1)
   for ISATAP have the following format:

    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+
    | Type  |Length |   0   |   0   |        IPv4 Address            |
    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+

   Type:
      1 for Source Link-layer address.  2 for Target Link-layer address.

   Length:
      1 (in units of 8 octets).

   IPv4 Address:
      A 32 bit IPv4 address, in network byte order.

   ISATAP nodes use the specifications in ([MECH], section 3.8) that
   pertain to sending and receiving Source/Target Link Layer Address
   Options.

7. Configuration and Management Requirements

7.1 Network Management

   This document defines no new MIB tables, nor extensions to any
   existing MIB tables. Objects found in [FTMIB][IPMIB][TUNMIB] are
   supported as described in the following subsections.

7.2 The ifRcvAddressTable

   The ISATAP driver maintains ifRcvAddressTable as a bidirectional
   association of locators with tunnel interfaces. Each locator in the
   table includes an IPv4 address-to-interface mapping (i.e., an IPv4
   ipAddressEntry in the node's ipAddressTable) and a list of associated
   tunnel interfaces. Each tunnel interface in the table has a
   tunnelIfEntry and a list of associated locators, i.e., a "locator
   set".

   The ISATAP driver implements the following conceptual functions to
   manage and search the ifRcvAddressTable:









Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


7.2.1 RcvTableAdd(locator, tunnel_interface)

   Creates a bidirectional association in the ifRcvAddressTable between
   the locator and tunnel interface, i.e., adds the locator to the
   tunnel interface's locator set and adds the tunnel interface to the
   locator's association list.

   Returns success or failure.

7.2.2 RcvTableDel(locator, tunnel_interface)

   Deletes ifRcvAddressTable entries according to the locator and tunnel
   interface arguments as follows:

   -  if both arguments are NULL, garbage-collects the entire table.

   -  if both arguments are non-NULL, deletes the locator from the
      tunnel interface's locator set and deletes the tunnel interface
      from the locator's association list.

   -  if the locator is non-NULL and tunnel interface is NULL, deletes
      the locator from the locator sets of all tunnel interfaces.

   -  if the locator is NULL and the tunnel interface is non-NULL,
      deletes the tunnel interface from the association lists of all
      locators.

   Returns success or failure.

7.2.3 RcvTableLocate(packet)

   Searches the ifRcvAddressTable to locate the correct tunnel interface
   to decapsulate a packet. First, determines the locator that matches
   the packet's IPv4 destination address and ifIndex for the interface
   the packet arrived on. Next, checks each tunnel interface in the
   locator's association list for exact matches of tunnelIfEncapsMethod
   with the packet's encapsulation type and tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress
   with the packet's IPv4 source address.

   If there is no match on the packet's IPv4 source address, a tunnel
   interface with a matching tunnelIfEncapsMethod and with
   tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress set to 0.0.0.0 is selected. If there are
   multiple matches, a tunnel interface with tunnelIfLocalInetAddress
   that matches the packet's IPv4 destination address is preferred.

   Returns a pointer to a tunnel interface if a match is found; else
   NULL.




Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


7.3 ISATAP Driver API

   The ISATAP driver implements an API used by, e.g., the ISATAP daemon,
   startup scripts, manual command line entry, kernel processes, etc.
   Access MUST be restricted to privileged users and applications.
   ISATAP nodes implement the basic and advanced APIs for IPv6
   [RFC3493][RFC3542].

7.4 ISATAP Interface Creation/Configuration

   ISATAP interfaces are created via the tunnelIfConfigTable, which
   results in simultaneous creation of a tunnelIfEntry and a companion
   ipv6InterfaceEntry. Each ISATAP interface configures a locator set,
   where each locator in the set represents an IPv4 address-to-interface
   mapping for the same site (or, represents a mapping that is routable
   on the global Internet). ISATAP interfaces MUST NOT configure a
   locator set that spans multiple sites.

   ISATAP interfaces configure the following values for objects in
   tunnelIfEntry:

   -  tunnelIfEncapsMethod is set to an IANATunnelType for "isatap".

   -  tunnelIfLocalInetAddress is set to an IPv4 address from the
      interface's locator set.

   -  tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress is set to 0.0.0.0 to denote wildcard
      match for remote tunnel endpoints.

   -  other read-write objects in the tunnelIfEntry are configured as
      for any tunnel interface.

   ISATAP interfaces are configured as advertising IPv6 interfaces and
   set the following values for objects in ipv6InterfaceEntry:

   -  ipv6InterfaceType is set to "tunnel".

   -  ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress is set to an octet string of zero
      length to indicate that this IPv6 interface does not have a
      physical address.

   -  ipv6InterfaceForwarding and ip6Forwarding for the node are set to
      "forwarding".

   -  other read-write objects in ipv6InterfaceEntry are configured as
      for any IPv6 interface.

   ISATAP interfaces create an ipv6RouterAdvertEntry and set its



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   ipv6RouterAdvertIfIndex object to the same value as
   ipv6InterfaceIfIndex. Other objects in ipv6RouterAdvertEntry are
   configured as for any IPv6 router.

   IPv6 address selection rules for ISATAP interfaces are specified in
   [RFC3484].

7.5 Configured Tunnel Creation/Configuration

   Configured tunnels are normally created by the ISATAP daemon in
   dynamic response to a tunnel creation request as an ISATAP
   interface's associated logical interface; they inherit the locator
   set of their associated ISATAP interface. Configured tunnels set the
   following values for objects in tunnelIfEntry:

   -  tunnelIfEncapsMethod is set to an appropriate IANATunnelType
      value.

   -  tunnelIfLocalInetAddress is set to an IPv4 address from the
      interface's locator set.

   -  tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress is set to an IPv4 address for the node
      at the far end of the tunnel.

   -  other read-write objects in the tunnelIfEntry are configured as
      for any tunnel interface.

   Configured tunnels set values for objects in ipv6InterfaceEntry as
   follows:

   -  ipv6InterfaceType is set to "tunnel".

   -  ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress is set to an octet string of zero
      length to indicate that this IPv6 interface does not have a
      physical address.

   -  other read-write objects in ipv6InterfaceEntry are configured as
      for any IPv6 interface.

      IPv6 address selection rules for configured tunnel interfaces are
      specified in [RFC3484].










Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


7.6 Reconfigurations Due to IPv4 Address Changes

   When an IPv4 address is removed from an interface, its corresponding
   locator SHOULD be removed from all locator sets via
   RcvTableDel(locator, NULL); tunnelIfEntrys that used the IPv4 address
   as tunnelIfLocalInetAddress SHOULD also configure a different local
   IPv4 address from their remaining locator set.

   When a new IPv4 address is added to an IPv4 interface, the node MAY
   add the corresponding new locator to a tunnel interface's locator set
   via RcvTableAdd(locator, tunnel_interface), and MAY also set
   tunnelIfLocalInetAddress for its tunnelIfEntry to the new address.

   Methods for triggering the above changes are out of scope.

8. Automatic Tunneling

   ISATAP nodes use the basic tunneling mechanisms specified in [MECH].
   The following additional specifications are also used:

8.1 Encapsulation

   The ISATAP driver encapsulates IPv6 packets using various
   encapsulation methods, including ip-protocol-41 (e.g., 6over4
   [RFC2529], 6to4 [RFC3056], IPv6-in-IPv4 configured tunnels [MECH],
   isatap, etc.), UDP [STD6] port 3544, and others.

   Security processing (e.g., [RFC2402][RFC2406], etc.), upper layer
   fragmentation [RFC3542] and header compression for the packet's inner
   headers are performed prior to encapsulation.

8.1.1 NAT Traversal

   Native IPv6 and/or ip-protocol-41 encapsulation provides sufficient
   functionality to support communications between peers that reside
   within the same site (i.e., the same enterprise network). When the
   remote peer is in a different site, NAT traversal via UDP/IPv4
   encapsulation MAY be necessary.

   When an ISATAP node determines that NAT traversal is necessary to
   reach a particular peer, it encapsulates IPv6 packets using UDP/IPv4
   port 3544 encapsulation. This determination may come through, e.g.,
   first attempting communications via ip-protocol-41 then failing over
   to UDP/IPv4 port 3544 encapsulation, administrative knowledge that a
   NAT is on the path, etc.






Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


8.1.2 Multicast

   ISATAP interfaces encapsulate packets with IPv6 multicast destination
   addresses using a mapped Organization-Local Scope IPv4 multicast
   address ([RFC2529], section 6) as the destination address in the
   encapsulating IPv4 header.

8.2 Tunnel MTU and Fragmentation

   Encapsulated packets sent by the ISATAP driver may require host-based
   IPv4 fragmentation in order to satisfy the 1280 byte IPv6 minimum
   MTU, e.g., when the underlying link has a small IPv4 MTU [BCP48].
   While this intentional fragmentation is not considered harmful,
   unmitigated IPv4 fragmentation caused by the network can cause poor
   performance [FRAG].  For example, since the minimum IPv4 fragment
   size is only 8 bytes [STD5], a single 1280 byte encapsulated packet
   could be shredded by the network into as many as 160 IPv4 fragments
   with obvious negative performance implications.

   ISATAP uses the MTU and fragmentation specifications in ([MECH],
   section 3.2) and the Maximum Reassembly Unit (MRU) specifications in
   ([MECH], section 3.6), which provide sufficient measures for avoiding
   excessive IPv4 fragmentation in certain controlled environments
   (e.g., 3GPP operator networks, enterprise networks, etc). To minimize
   IPv4 fragmentation and improve performance in general use case
   scenarios, ISATAP nodes SHOULD add the following simple
   instrumentation to the IPv4 reassembly cache:

   When the initial fragment of an encapsulated packet arrives, the
   packet's IPv4 reassembly timer is set to 1 second (i.e., the worst
   case store-and-forward delay budget for a 1280 byte packet). If an
   encapsulated packet's IPv4 reassembly timer expires:

   -  If enough contiguous leading bytes of the packet have arrived
      (see: section 8.6), reassemble the packet using zero-filled or
      heuristically-chosen replacement data bytes in place of any
      missing fragments. (Otherwise, garbage-collect the reassembly
      buffer and return from processing.)

   -  Mark the packet as "INCOMPLETE", and also mark it with an
      "ACTUAL_BYTES" length that encodes the actual number of data bytes
      in fragments that arrived.

   -  Deliver the packet to the ISATAP driver, and do not send an ICMPv4
      "time exceeded" message [STD5].

   Appendix B provides informative text on the derivation of the 1280
   byte IPv6 minimum MTU.



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


8.3 Handling ICMPv4 Errors

   ISATAP interfaces SHOULD process ARP failures and persistent ICMPv4
   errors as link-specific information indicating that a path to a
   neighbor may have failed ([RFC2461], section 7.3.3).

8.4 Link-Local Addresses

   ISATAP interfaces use link local addresses constructed as specified
   in section 6.1 of this document.

8.5 Neighbor Discovery over Tunnels

   The specification in ([MECH], section 3.8) is used; the additional
   specification for neighbor discovery in section 9 of this document
   are also used.

8.6 Decapsulation/Filtering

   ISATAP nodes typically arrange for the ISATAP driver to receive all
   IPv4-encapsulated IPv6 packets that are addressed to one of the
   node's IPv4 addresses. Examples include ip-protocol-41 (e.g., 6to4,
   6over4, configured tunnels, isatap, etc.), UDP/IPv4 port 3544, and
   others.  The ISATAP driver uses the decapsulation and filtering
   specifications in ([MECH], section 3.6), and processes each packet
   according to the following steps:

   1.  Locate the correct tunnel interface to receive the packet (see:
       section 7.2.3). If not found, silently discard the packet and
       return from processing.

   2.  If the tunnel uses header compression, reconstitute headers.  If
       header reconstitution fails, silently discard the packet and
       return from processing.

   3.  Verify that the packet's IPv4 source address is correct for the
       encapsulated IPv6 source address. For packets received on a
       configured tunnel interface, verification is exactly as specified
       in ([MECH], section 3.6).

       For packets received on an ISATAP interface, the IPv4 source
       address is correct if:

       -  the IPv6 source address is an ISATAP address that embeds the
          IPv4 source address in its interface identifier, or:

       -  the IPv6 source address is the address of an IPv6 neighbor on
          an ISATAP interface associated with the locator that matched



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


          the packet (see: section 7.2.3), or:

       -  the IPv4 source address is a member of the Potential Router
          List (see: section 9.1).

       If the IPv4 source address is incorrect, silently discard the
       packet and return from processing.

   4.  Perform IPv4 ingress filtering (optional; disabled by default)
       then decapsulate the packet but do not discard encapsulating
       headers.  If the IPv6 source address is invalid (see: [MECH],
       section 3.6), silently discard the packet and return from
       processing.

       For UDP port 3544 packets received on an ISATAP interface, if the
       IPv6 source address is an ISATAP link local address with the 'u'
       bit set to 0 and an embedded IPv4 address that does not match the
       IPv4 source address (see: section 6), rewrite the IPv6 source
       address to inform upper layers of the sender's mapped UDP port
       number and IPv4 source address.  Specific rules for rewriting the
       IPv6 source address are established during ISATAP interface
       configuration.

   5.  Perform ingress filtering on the IPv6 source address (see:
       [MECH], section 3.6). Next, determine the correct transport
       protocol listener [FLOW] if the packet is destined to the
       localhost; otherwise, perform an IPv6 forwarding table lookup and
       site border/firewall filtering (see: [UNIQUE], section 6).

       If the packet cannot be delivered, the driver SHOULD send an
       ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message ([RFC2463], section 3.2)
       to the packet's source. The message SHOULD select as its source
       address an IPv6 address from the outgoing interface (if the
       packet was destined to the localhost) or an ingress-wise correct
       IPv6 address from the interface that would have forwarded the
       packet had it not been filtered.

       The Code field of the message is set as follows:

       -  if there is no route to the destination, the Code field is set
          to 0 (see: [RFC2463], section 3.1).

       -  if communication with the destination is administratively
          prohibited, the Code field is set to 1 ([RFC2463], section
          3.1).

       -  if the packet is destined to the localhost, but the transport
          protocol has no listener, the Code field is set to 4



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


          ([RFC2463], section 3.1).

       -  if the packet's destination is beyond the scope of the source
          address, the Code field is set to 2 (see: IANA
          Considerations).

       -  if the packet was dropped due to ingress filtering policies,
          the Code field is set to 5 (see: IANA Considerations).

       -  if the packet is dropped due to a reject route, the Code field
          is set to 6 (see: IANA Considerations).

       -  if the packet was received on a point-to-point link and
          destined to an address within a subnet assigned to that same
          link, or if the reason for the failure to deliver cannot be
          mapped to any of the specific conditions listed above, the
          Code field is set to 3 ([RFC2463], section 3.2).

       After sending the ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message, discard
       the packet and return from processing.

   6.  If the packet is "INCOMPLETE" (see section 8.2) prepare an
       authenticated, unsolicited Router Advertisement message
       ([RFC2461], section 6.2.4) with an MTU option that encodes the
       maximum of "ACTUAL_BYTES" and (68 bytes minus the size of
       encapsulating headers.)

       The IPv6 destination address in the Router Advertisement message
       is set to the packet's IPv6 source address, and the message is
       reverse-encapsulated and returned to the node that sent the
       "INCOMPLETE" packet, i.e., it is NOT presented to the native IPv6
       stack for transmission.

       The 68 byte minimum MTU is due to the requirement that every
       Internet module must be able to forward a datagram of 68 octets
       without further fragmentation ([STD5], Internet Protocol, section
       3.2).

   7.  Discard encapsulating headers. If the packet was destined to a
       remote host, forward the packet and return from processing.
       Otherwise, apply security processing (e.g., [RFC2402][RFC2406],
       etc.), and place the packet in a buffer for upper layers. The
       buffer may be, e.g., the IPv6 reassembly cache, an application's
       mapped data buffer [RFC3542], etc.

       If there is clear evidence that upper layer reassembly has
       stalled, an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message [RFC1981] MAY be sent
       to the packet's source address with an MTU value likely to incur



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


       successful reassembly.  Some applications may realize greater
       efficiency by accepting partial information from "INCOMPLETE"
       packets (see: section 8.2) and requesting selective
       retransmission of missing portions.

9. Neighbor Discovery for ISATAP Interfaces

   ISATAP nodes use the neighbor discovery mechanisms specified in
   [RFC2461] along with securing mechanisms (e.g., [SEND]) to create/
   change neighbor cache entries and to provide control plane signaling
   for automatic tunnel configuration. ISATAP interfaces also implement
   the following specifications:

9.1 Conceptual Model Of A Host

   To the list of Conceptual Data Structures ([RFC2461], section 5.1),
   ISATAP interfaces add:

   Potential Router List
      A set of entries about potential routers; used to support the
      mechanisms specified in  section 9.2.2.1. Each entry ("PRL(i)")
      has an associated timer ("TIMER(i)"), and an IPv4 address
      ("V4ADDR(i)") that represents a router's advertising ISATAP
      interface.

9.2 Router and Prefix Discovery

9.2.1 Router Specification

   The Router Specification in ([RFC2461], section 6.2) is used. Router
   Advertisements sent on ISATAP interfaces MAY include information
   delegated via DHCPv6 [RFC3633]). Router Advertisements sent on ISATAP
   interfaces MUST NOT include a prefix option containing a preferred
   lifetime greater than the valid lifetime.

9.2.2 Host Specification

   The Host Specification in ([RFC2461], section 6.3) is used. ISATAP
   interfaces add the following specifications:

9.2.2.1 Host Variables

   To the list of host variables ([RFC2461], section 6.3.2), ISATAP
   interfaces add:







Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   PrlRefreshInterval
      Time in seconds between successive refreshments of the PRL after
      initialization. The designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff)
      represents infinity.
      Default: 3600 seconds

   MinRouterSolicitInterval
      Minimum time in seconds between successive solicitations of the
      same advertising ISATAP interface. The designated value of all 1's
      (0xffffffff) represents infinity.

9.2.2.2 Potential Router List Initialization

   ISATAP nodes provision an ISATAP interface's PRL with IPv4 addresses
   discovered via a DNS fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) [STD13],
   manual configuration, a DHCPv4 option, a DHCPv4 vendor-specific
   option, or an unspecified alternate method.

   FQDNs are established via manual configuration or an unspecified
   alternate method. FQDNs are resolved into IPv4 addresses through
   querying the DNS service, querying a site-specific name service,
   static host file lookup, or an unspecified alternate method.

   When the node provisions an ISATAP interface's PRL with IPv4
   addresses, it sets a timer for the interface (e.g.,
   PrlRefreshIntervalTimer) to PrlRefreshInterval seconds. The node re-
   initializes the PRL as specified above when PrlRefreshIntervalTimer
   expires, or when an asynchronous re-initialization event occurs. When
   the node re-initializes the PRL, it resets PrlRefreshIntervalTimer to
   PrlRefreshInterval seconds.

9.2.2.3 Processing Received Router Advertisements

   To the list of checks for validating Router Advertisement messages
   ([RFC2461], section 6.1.1), ISATAP interfaces add:

      -  IP Source Address is an ISATAP link-local address that embeds
         V4ADDR(i) for some PRL(i).

   Valid Router Advertisements received on an ISATAP interface are
   processed exactly as specified in ([RFC2461], section 6.3.4) except
   that, for unicast Router Advertisements that include an MTU option,
   the MTU value does not alter the ISATAP interface LinkMTU. Instead,
   the MTU value is recorded, e.g., in the IPv6 forwarding table. If the
   IPv6 destination address is one of the node's own unicast addresses,
   the MTU value is recorded such that upper layer fragmentation
   [RFC3542] will be used to reduce the size of the encapsulated packets
   sent via the router. The recorded value is aged as for IPv6 path MTU



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   information [RFC1981].

9.2.2.4 Sending Router Solicitations

   To the list of events after which Router Solicitation messages may be
   sent ([RFC2461], section 6.3.7), ISATAP interfaces add:

      -  TIMER(i) for some PRL(i) expires.

   Since unsolicited Router Advertisements may be incomplete (and, since
   multicast unsolicited Router Advertisements may not arrive) ISATAP
   nodes schedule periodic events to solicit Router Advertisements from
   certain PRL(i)'s. When this periodic solicitation is used, after
   sending the initial solicitation and receiving a valid Router
   Advertisement message from PRL(i) with a non-zero Router Lifetime the
   node sets TIMER(i) to schedule the first periodic event.

   The TIMER(i) value SHOULD be set such that the next periodic event
   will trigger a solicited Router Advertisement message before the
   expiration of remaining lifetimes stored for this PRL(i), including
   the Router Lifetime, Valid Lifetimes received in Prefix Information
   Options, and Route Lifetimes received in Route Information Options
   [DEFLT]. The TIMER(i) value MUST be set to no less than
   MinRouterSolicitInterval seconds, where MinRouterSolicitInterval is
   configurable for the node with a conservative default value.

   When TIMER(i) expires, the node sends Router Solicitation messages as
   specified in ([RFC2461], section 6.3.7) except that the messages use
   an ISATAP link-local address that embeds V4ADDR(i) as the IPv6
   destination address (i.e., instead of the All-Routers multicast
   address). If remaining lifetimes for this PRL(i) have not yet expired
   and the PRL(i) is still in use, TIMER(i) is reset as described above.

9.3 Address Resolution and Neighbor Unreachability Detection

9.3.1 Address Resolution

   The specification in ([RFC2461], section 7.2) is used. ISATAP
   addresses for which the neighbor's link-layer address cannot
   otherwise be determined (e.g., from a neighbor cache entry) are
   resolved to link-layer addresses by a static computation, i.e., the
   last four octets are treated as an IPv4 address.

   Hosts SHOULD perform an initial reachability confirmation by sending
   Neighbor Solicitation message(s) and receiving a Neighbor
   Advertisement message. Routers MAY perform this initial reachability
   confirmation, but this might not scale in all environments.




Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


9.3.2 Neighbor Unreachability Detection

   Hosts SHOULD perform Neighbor Unreachability Detection ([RFC2461],
   section 7.3). Routers MAY perform neighbor unreachability detection,
   but this might not scale in all environments.

10. Security considerations

   Security considerations in the normative references apply. Also:

   -  ISATAP nodes observe the security considerations outlined in
      [SENDPS]; use of (e.g., [RFC2402][RFC2406], etc.) is not always
      feasible.

   -  site border routers SHOULD install a reject route for the IPv6
      prefix FC00::/7 to insure that packets with local IPv6 destination
      addresses will not be forwarded outside of the site via a default
      route.

   -  administrators MUST ensure that lists of IPv4 addresses
      representing the advertising ISATAP interfaces of PRL members are
      well maintained.

11. IANA Considerations

   The IANA is instructed to specify the format for Modified EUI-64
   address construction ([ADDR], Appendix A) in the IANA Ethernet
   Address Block. The text in Appendix C of this document is offered as
   an example specification. The current version of the IANA registry
   for Ether Types can be accessed at:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers.

   The IANA is instructed to assign the new ICMPv6 code field types
   found in Appendix D of this document for the ICMPv6 Destination
   Unreachable message. The policy for assigning new ICMPv6 code field
   types is First Come First Served, as defined in [BCP26]. The current
   version of the IANA registry for ICMPv6 type numbers can be accessed
   at:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters.

12. IAB Considerations

   [RFC3424] ("IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address Fixing
   (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation") section 4 requires that
   any proposal supporting NAT traversal must explicitly address the
   following considerations:





Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


12.1 Problem Definition

   The specific problem being solved is enabling IPv6 connectivity for
   ISATAP nodes that are unable to communicate via ip-protocol-41 or
   native IPv6.

12.2 Exit Strategy

   ISATAP nodes use UDP/IPv4 encapsulation for NAT traversal as a last
   resort. As soon as native IPv6 or ip-protocol-41 support becomes
   available, ISATAP nodes will naturally cease using UDP/IPv4
   encapsulation.

12.3 Brittleness

   UDP/IPv4 encapsulation with ISATAP introduces brittleness into the
   system in several ways: the discovery process assumes a certain
   classification of devices based on their treatment of UDP; the
   mappings need to be continuously refreshed, and addressing structure
   may cause some hosts located beyond a common NAT to be unreachable
   from each other.

   ISATAP assumes a certain classification of devices based on their
   treatment of UDP. There could be devices that would not fit into one
   of these molds, and hence would be improperly classified by ISATAP.

   The bindings allocated from the NAT need to be continuously
   refreshed.  Since the timeouts for these bindings is very
   implementation specific, the refresh interval cannot easily be
   determined.  When the binding is not being actively used to receive
   traffic, but to wait for an incoming message, the binding refresh
   will needlessly consume network bandwidth.

12.4 Requirements for a Long Term Solution

   The devices that implement the IPv4 NAT service should in the future
   also become IPv6 routers.














Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


13. Acknowledgments

   The ideas in this document are not original, and the authors
   acknowledge the original architects. Portions of this work were
   sponsored through SRI International internal projects and government
   contracts. Government sponsors include Monica Farah-Stapleton and
   Russell Langan (U.S. Army CECOM ASEO), and Dr.  Allen Moshfegh (U.S.
   Office of Naval Research). SRI International sponsors include Dr.
   Mike Frankel, J. Peter Marcotullio, Lou Rodriguez, and Dr. Ambatipudi
   Sastry.

   The following are acknowledged for providing peer review input: Jim
   Bound, Rich Draves, Cyndi Jung, Ambatipudi Sastry, Aaron Schrader,
   Ole Troan, Vlad Yasevich.

   The following are acknowledged for their significant contributions:
   Alain Durand, Hannu Flinck, Jason Goldschmidt, Nathan Lutchansky,
   Karen Nielsen, Mohan Parthasarathy, Chirayu Patel, Art Shelest, Pekka
   Savola, Margaret Wasserman, Brian Zill.

   The authors acknowledge the work of Quang Nguyen on "Virtual
   Ethernet" under the guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang that proposed very
   similar ideas to those that appear in this document. This work was
   first brought to the authors' attention on September 20, 2002.

   IAB considerations are the same as for Teredo. The diagram in section
   4 was inspired by a similar diagram in RFC 3371.

   The following individuals are acknowledged for their helpful insights
   on path MTU discovery: Jari Arkko, Iljitsch van Beijnum, Jim Bound,
   Ralph Droms, Alain Durand, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, Brian Haberman,
   Bob Hinden, Christian Huitema, Kevin Lahey, Hakgoo Lee, Matt Mathis,
   Jeff Mogul, Erik Nordmark, Soohong Daniel Park, Chirayu Patel,
   Michael Richardson, Pekka Savola, Hesham Soliman, Mark Smith, Dave
   Thaler, Michael Welzl, Lixia Zhang and the members of the Nokia NRC/
   COM Mountain View team.

      "...and I'm one step ahead of the shoe shine,
       Two steps away from the county line,
       Just trying to keep my customers satisfied,
       Satisfi-i-ied!" - Paul Simon, 1969










Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Appendix A. Major Changes

   Major changes from earlier versions to version 17:

   -  new section on configuration/management.

   -  new appendices on IPv6 minimum MTU; IANA considerations.

   -  expanded section on MTU and fragmentation.

   -  expanded sections on encapsulation/decapsulation.

   -  specified relation to IPv6 Node Requirements.

   -  introduced distinction between control; forwarding planes.

   -  specified multicast mappings.

   -  revised neighbor discovery, address autoconfiguration, IANA
      considerations and security considerations sections.

Appendix B. The IPv6 minimum MTU

   The 1280 byte IPv6 minimum MTU was proposed by Steve Deering and
   agreed through working group consensus in November 1997 discussions
   on the IPv6 mailing list. The size was chosen to allow extra room for
   link layer encapsulations without exceeding the Ethernet MTU of 1500
   bytes, i.e., the practical physical cell size of the Internet. The
   1280 byte MTU also provides a fixed upper bound for the size of IPv6
   packets/fragments with a maximum store-and-forward delay budget of ~1
   second assuming worst-case link speeds of ~10Kbps [BCP48], thus
   providing a convenient value for use in reassembly buffer timer
   settings. Finally, the 1280 byte MTU allows transport connections
   (e.g., TCP) to configure a large-enough maximum segment size for
   improved performance even if the IPv4 interface that will send the
   tunneled packets uses a smaller MTU.















Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Appendix C. Modified EUI-64 Addresses in the IANA Ethernet Address Block

   Modified EUI-64 addresses ([ADDR], Appendix A) in the IANA Ethernet
   Address Block are formed as the concatenation of the 24-bit IANA OUI
   (00-00-5E) with a 40-bit extension identifier. They have the
   following appearance in memory (bits transmitted right-to-left within
   octets, octets transmitted left-to-right):

   0                       23                                        63
   |        OUI            |            extension identifier         |
   000000ug00000000 01011110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   When the first two octets of the extension identifier encode the
   hexadecimal value 0xFFFE, the remainder of the extension identifier
   encodes a 24-bit vendor-supplied id as follows:

   0                       23               39                       63
   |        OUI            |     0xFFFE     |   vendor-supplied id   |
   000000ug00000000 0101111011111111 11111110xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   When the first octet of the extension identifier encodes the
   hexadecimal value 0xFE, the remainder of the extension identifier
   encodes a 32-bit IPv4 address as follows:

   0                       23      31                                63
   |        OUI            |  0xFE |           IPv4 address          |
   000000ug00000000 0101111011111110 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   Modified EUI-64 format interface identifiers are formed by inverting
   the "u" bit, i.e., the "u" bit is set to one (1) to indicate
   universal scope and it is set to zero (0) to indicate local scope
   ([ADDR], section 2.5.1).



















Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Appendix D. Proposed ICMPv6 Code Field Types

   Three new ICMPv6 Code Field Type definitions are proposed for the
   ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message. The first proposes a new
   definition for a currently-unassigned code type (2) in the ICMPv6
   Type Numbers registry; the others propose new definitions for code
   types (5) and (6). The code type field definition proposals appear
   below:

      Type    Name                                    Reference
      ----    -------------------------               ---------
         1    Destination Unreachable                 [RFC2463]
         Code           2 - beyond the scope of source address
                        5 - source address failed ingress policy
                        6 - reject route to destination


Normative References

[BCP14]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
   Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[BCP26]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
   Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

[STD3]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication
   Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

[STD5]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.

[STD6]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August
   1980.

[RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S. and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for
   IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

[RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
   (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

[RFC2461]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery
   for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.

[RFC2463]  Conta, A., and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol
   (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification",
   RFC 2463, December 1998.

[RFC2529]  Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
   Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


[RFC3424]  Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-
   Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation", RFC 3424,
   November 2002.

[RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
   version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

[RFC3493]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
   Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 3493,
   February 2003.

[RFC3542]  Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E. and T.  Jinmei,
   "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6", RFC
   3542, May 2003.

[RFC3582]  Abley, J., Black, B. and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
   Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003.

[RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host
   Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003.

[ADDR]     Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
   Architecture", draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4, Work in Progress,
   October 2003.

[DEFLT]    Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
   More-Specific Routes", draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection, Work in
   Progress, December 2003.

[MECH]     Gilligan, R. and E. Nordmark, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
   for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2, Work in
   Progress, February 2003.

[NODEREQ]  Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", draft-ietf-ipv6-node-
   requirements, Work in Progress, October 2003.

[UNIQUE]   Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
   Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr, Work in Progress,
   January 2004.












Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Informative References

[BCP48]  Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M. and V.  Magret, "End-to-
   end Performance Implications of Slow Links", BCP 48, RFC 3150, July
   2001.

[STD13]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
   specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

[RFC2402]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC
   2402, November 1998.

[RFC2406]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload
   (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

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

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

[RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
   IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

[RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M.
   Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC
   3315, July 2003.

[ANYCAST]  Hagino, J. and K. Ettikan, "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast",
   draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis, Work in Progress, June 2003.

[FLOW]     Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B. and S.  Deering,
   "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label, Work in
   Progress, December 2003.

[FRAG]     Mogul, J. and C. Kent, "Fragmentation Considered Harmful", In
   Proc. SIGCOMM '87 Workshop on Frontiers in Computer Communications
   Technology. August, 1987.

[FTMIB]    Haberman, B. and M. Wasserman, "IP Forwarding Table MIB",
   draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update, Work in Progress, August 2003.

[IPMIB]    Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the Internet
   Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update, Work in Progress,
   September 2003.

[SEND]     Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Sommerfield, B., Zill, B.  and P.



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


   Nikander, "Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", draft-ietf-send-ndopt,
   Work in Progress, October 2003.

[SENDPS]   Nikander, P., Kempf, J. and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
   Discovery Trust Models and Threats", draft-ietf-send-psreq, Work in
   Progress, October 2003.

[TUNMIB]   Thaler, D., "IP Tunnel MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-inet-tunnel-mib,
   Work in Progress, January 2004.


Authors' Addresses

Fred L. Templin
Nokia
313 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, CA  94110
US

Phone: +1 650 625 2331
EMail: ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com


Tim Gleeson
Cisco Systems K.K.
Shinjuku Mitsu Building
2-1-1 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo  163-0409
Japan

EMail: tgleeson@cisco.com


Mohit Talwar
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA  98052-6399
US

Phone: +1 425 705 3131
EMail: mohitt@microsoft.com










Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


Dave Thaler
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA  98052-6399
US

Phone: +1 425 703 8835
EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com


Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has
made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights
made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made
available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license
or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
which may cover technology that may be required to practice this
standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.

The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this document.
For more information consult the online list of claimed rights.


Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself
may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations,
except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in



Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                   ISATAP                    February 2004


which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet
Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.  This
document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS"
basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgment

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.

































Templin, et al.          Expires August 15, 2004               [Page 30]


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