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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6741

Internet Draft                                              RJ Atkinson
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng-04.txt                               Consultant
Expires:  29 Nov 2012                                         SN Bhatti
Category: Experimental                                    U. St Andrews
                                                            29 May 2012

                    ILNP Engineering Considerations
                     draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng-04.txt

Status of this Memo

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date
   of publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described
   in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
   without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or
   IETF Contributions published or made publicly available
   before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright
   in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the
   right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF
   Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the
   person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process,
   and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF
   Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC
   or to translate it into languages other than English.

   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



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 1]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   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/1id-abstracts.html

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

   This document is not on the IETF standards-track and does not
   specify any level of standard. This document merely provides
   information for the Internet community.

   The ILNP document set has had extensive review within the IRTF
   Routing Research Group.  ILNP is one of the recommendations made
   by the RG Chairs. Separately, various refereed research papers
   on ILNP have also been published during this decade. So the
   ideas contained herein have had much broader review than
   IRTF Routing RG. The views in this document were considered
   controversial by the Routing RG, but the RG reached a consensus
   that the document still should be published. The Routing RG has
   had remarkably little consensus on anything, so virtually all
   Routing RG outputs are considered controversial.

Abstract

   This document describes common (i.e. version independent)
   engineering details for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
   (ILNP), which is an experimental, evolutionary enhancement to IP.
   This document is a product of the IRTF Routing RG.


Table of Contents

      1.  Introduction .........................................?
      2.  ILNP Identifiers......................................?
      3.  Encoding of Identifiers and Locators for ILNPv6.......?
      4.  Transport Layer Changes...............................?
      5.  ILNP Communication Cache (ILCC).......................?
      6.  Handling Location/Connectivity Changes................?
      7.  Subnetting............................................?
      8.  DNS Considerations....................................?
      9.  IP Security for ILNP..................................?
     10.  Backwards Compatibility Incremental Deployment........?
     11.  Security Considerations...............................?
     12.  Privacy Considerations................................?
     13.  Operational Considerations............................?



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 2]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


     14.  Referrals and Application Programming Interfaces......?
     15.  IANA Considerations...................................?
     16.  References............................................?

1. INTRODUCTION

   The Identifier Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) is an experimental
   network protocol that provides evolutionary enhancements to IP.
   ILNP is backwards-compatible with IP and also is incrementally
   deployable. The best starting point for learning about ILNP is
   the ILNP Architectural Description, which includes a document
   roadmap [ILNP-ARCH].

   ILNP is a single architecture that can have multiple
   instantiations. For example, clean slate approach was possible.
   However, we choose to describe engineering approaches in terms of
   incremental updates to IPv4 and IPv6. Engineering considerations
   common to those instantiations of ILNP are described in this
   document. Packet formats and certain other IPv4-centric details
   of ILNP for IPv4 (ILNPv4) are specified in separate documents
   [ILNP-v4OPTS] [ILNP-ICMPv4]. Packet formats and certain other
   IPv6-centric details of ILNP for IPv6 (ILNPv6) are specified in
   separate documents [ILNP-NONCEv6] [ILNP-ICMPv6].

1.1 Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. ILNP IDENTIFIERS

   All ILNP nodes must have at least one Node Identifier (or just
   "Identifier") value. However, there are various options for
   generating those Identifier values. We describe in this section
   the relevant engineering issues related to Identifier generation
   and usage.

   Note well that ILNP Node Identifiers name an ILNP-capable node,
   and are NOT bound to a specific interface of that node. So a
   given ILNP Node Identifier is valid on all active interfaces of the
   node to which that ILNP Identifier is bound. This is true even if
   the bits used to form the Identifier value happened to be taken
   from a specific interface as an engineering convenience.

2.1 Syntax




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 3]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   ILNP Identifiers are always unsigned 64-bit strings, and may be
   realised as 64-bit unsigned integers. Both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 use
   the Modified EUI-64 [IEEE-EUI] syntax that is used by IPv6
   Interface Identifiers [RFC4291, Sec 2.5.1], as shown in Figure 2.1.

      +--------------------------------------------------+
      |  6 id bits  | U bit | G bit |      24 id bits    |
      +--------------------------------------------------+
      |                   32 id bits                     |
      +--------------------------------------------------+

    Figure 2.1. Node Identifier format as used for IPv6, using the
    same syntax as in RFC4291 Sec 2.5.1

   That syntax contains two special reserved bit flags. One flag
   (the U bit) indicates whether the value has "universal" (i.e.
   global) scope (1) or "local" (0) scope. The other flag (the G
   bit) indicates whether the value is an "individual" address (1)
   or "group" (i.e multicast) (0) address.

   However, this format does allow other values to be set, by use of
   administrative or other policy control, as required, by setting
   the U bit to "local".


2.1 Default values for an Identifier

   By default, this value, including the U bit and G bit, are set as
   described in Sec 2.5.1 of RFC4291 [RFC4291]. Where no other
   value of Identifier is available for an ILNP node, this is the
   value that MUST be used.

   Because ILNP Identifiers might have local scope, and also to
   handle the case where two nodes at different locations happen to
   be using the same global scope Identifier (e.g. due to a
   manufacturing fault in a network chipset or card), implementers
   must be careful in how ILNP Identifiers are handled within an end
   system's networking implementation. Some details are discussed in
   Section 4 below.

2.2 Local-scoped Identifier values

   ILNP Identifiers for a node also MAY have the Scope bit of the
   Node Identifier set to "local"" scope. Locally unique identifiers
   MAY be Cryptographically Generated, created following the
   procedures used for IPv6 Cryptographically Generated Addresses
   (CGAs) [RFC3972] [RFC4581] [RFC4982].




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 4]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   Also, locally unique identifiers MAY be used to create the ILNP
   equivalent to the Privacy Extensions for IPv6, generating ILNP
   Identifiers following the procedures used for IPv6 [RFC4941].

2.3 Multicast Identifiers

   An ILNP Identifier with the G bit set to "group" names an ILNP
   multicast group, while an ILNP Identifier with the G bit set to
   "individual" names an individual ILNP node. However, this usage
   of multicast for Identifiers for ILNP is currently undefined:
   ILNP uses IPv6 multicast for ILNPv6 and IPv4 multicast for ILNPv4
   and uses the multicast address formats defined as appropriate.

   The use of multicast Identifiers and design of an enhanced
   multicast capability for ILNPv6 and ILNPv4 is currently work
   in progress.

2.4 Administration of Identifier values

   Note that just as IPv6 does not need global, centralised
   administrative management of its interface identifiers, so ILNPv6
   does not need global, centralised administrative  management of
   the NID values.



3.0 ENCODING OF IDENTIFIERS AND LOCATORS FOR ILNPv6

3.1 Encoding of I and L values

   With ILNPv6, the Identifier and Locator values within a packet
   are encoded in the the existing space for the IPv6 address, as
   shown in Figure 3.1, which is based in part on [RFC3177].

   /* IPv6 */
   | 3 |     45 bits         |  16 bits  |     64 bits             |
   +---+---------------------+-----------+-------------------------+
   |001|global routing prefix| subnet ID |  Interface Identifier   |
   +---+---------------------+-----------+-------------------------+

   /* ILNPv6 */
   |             64 bits                 |     64 bits             |
   +---+---------------------+-----------+-------------------------+
   |          Locator (L64)              |  Node Identifier (NID)  |
   +---+---------------------+-----------+-------------------------+

     Figure 3.1: IPv6 address format example as used in ILNPv6.




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 5]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   The ILNPv6 Locator uses the upper 64-bits of the 128-bit IPv6
   address space. It has the same syntax and semantics as today's
   IPv6 routing prefix. So, an ILNPv6 packet carrying a Locator
   value can be used just like an IPv6 packet today as far as core
   routers are concerned.

   The example in Figure 3.1 happens to use a /48 prefix,
   as was recommended by [RFC3177].  However, more recent advice
   is that prefixes need not be fixed at /48 and could be up
   to /64 [RFC6177].  This change, however, does not impact
   the syntax or semantics of the Locator value.

   The ILNPv6 Identifier value uses the lower 64-bits of the 128-bit
   IPv6 address. It has the same syntax as an IPv6 identifier, but
   different semantics. This provides a fixed-length non-topological
   name for a node. Identifiers are bound to nodes, not to
   interfaces of a node. All ILNP Identifiers MUST comply with the
   modified EUI-64 syntax already specified for IPv6's "Interface
   Identifier" values, as described in Section 2.1.

   IEEE EUI-64 Identifiers can have either global-scope or
   local-scope.  So ILNP Identifiers also can have either
   global-scope or local-scope.  A reserved bit in the modified
   EUI-64 syntax clearly indicates whether a given Identifier has
   global-scope or local-scope. A node is not required to
   use a global-scope Identifier, although that is the recommended
   practice. Note that the syntax of the Node Identifier field has
   exactly the same syntax as that defined for IPv6 address in
   Section 2.5.1 of RFC 4291 [RFC4291]. (This is based on the IEEE
   EUI-64 syntax [IEEE-EUI], but is not the same.)

   Most commonly, Identifiers have global-scope and are derived
   from one or more IEEE 802 or IEEE 1394 'MAC Addresses' (sic)
   already associated with the node, following the procedure
   already defined for IPv6 [RFC4291].  Global-scope identifiers
   have a high probability of being globally unique.  This approach
   eliminates the need to manage Identifiers, among other benefits.

   Local-scope Identifiers MUST be unique within the context of
   their Locators. The existing mechanisms of the IPv4 Address
   Resolution Protocol [RFC826] and IPv6 State-Less Address
   Auto-Configuration (SLAAC) [RFC4862] automatically enforce this
   constraint.

   For example, on an Ethernet-based IPv4 subnetwork the ARP Reply
   message is sent via link-layer broadcast, thereby advertising the
   current binding between an IPv4 address and a MAC address to all
   nodes on that IPv4 subnetwork.  (Note also that a well-known,



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 6]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   long standing, issue with ARP is that it cannot be
   authenticated.)  Local-scope Identifiers MUST NOT be used with
   other Locators without first ensuring uniqueness in the context
   of those other Locators e.g. by using IPv6 Neighbour Discovery's
   Duplicate Address Detection mechanism when using ILNPv6 or by
   sending an ARP Request when using ILNPv4.

   Other methods might be used to generate local-scope Identifiers.
   For example, one might derive Identifiers using some form of
   cryptographic generation or using the methods specified in the
   IPv6 Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to State-Less Address Auto-
   Configuration (SLAAC) [RFC4862]. When cryptographic generation of
   Identifiers using methods described in RFC3972 is in use, only
   the Identifier is included, never the Locator, thereby preserving
   roaming capability. One could also imagine creating a local-scope
   Identifier by taking a cryptographic hash of a node's public key.
   Of course, in the unlikely event of a Identifier collision, for
   example when a node has chosen to use a local- scope Identifier
   value, the node remains free to use some other local-scope
   Identifier value(s).

   It is worth remembering here that an IPv6 address names a
   specific network interface on a specific node, but an ILNPv6
   Identifier names the node itself, not a specific interface on the
   node. This difference in definition is essential to providing
   seamless support for mobility and multi-homing, which are
   discussed in more detail later in this note.


3.2 Network-level packet formats

   ILNPv6 Locator and Identifier values are encoded into IPv6
   address space and ILNPv6 uses directly the Classic IPv6 packet
   format, as shown in Figure 3.3. This is also the view of an
   ILNPv6 packet as seen by core routers - they simply use the
   Locator value (top 64-bits of the address field) just as they
   would use an IPv6 prefix today (e.g. either as /48 or as /64
   when using sub-network routing).


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Payload Length       |   Next Header |  Hop Limit    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Source Address                         |



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 7]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Destination  Address                   |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 3.3: Existing ("Classic") IPv6 Header


   In essence, the Locator names a subnetwork. (Locators can also be
   referred to as Routing Prefixes if discussing Classic IPv6).  Of
   course, backwards compatibility requirements mean that ILNPv6
   Locators use the same number space as IPv6 routing prefixes.
   This ensures that no changes are needed to deployed IPv6 routers
   when deploying ILNPv6.

   The low-order 64-bits of the IPv6 address become the Identifier.
   Details of the Identifier were discussed above. The Identifier is
   only used by end-systems, so Figure 3.4 shows the view of the
   same packet format, but as viewed by an ILNPv6 node. As this
   only needs to be parsed in this way by the end-system, so ILNPv6
   deployment is enabled incrementally by updating end-systems
   as required.


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Payload Length       |   Next Header |  Hop Limit    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Source Locator                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Source Identifier                       |
   |                                                               |



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 8]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   +                                                               +
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Destination Locator                     |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Destination Identifier                    |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 3.4: ILNPv6 Header as seen by ILNPv6-enabled end-systems

3.3 Encoding of identifiers and locators for ILNPv4

   Encoding of Identifier and Locator values for ILNPv4 is not as
   straight-forward as for ILNPv6. In analogy to ILNPv6, in ILNPv4,
   the Locator value is a routing prefix for IPv4, but is at most 30
   bits. Source Locator values are carried in the source address
   field of the IPv4 header, and destination Locator values in the
   destination address field. So, just like for ILNPv6, for ILNPv4,
   packet routing can be performed by routers examining existing
   prefix values in the IPv4 header.

   However, for ILNPv4, additional option headers have to be used to
   carry the Identifier value as there is not enough room in the
   normal IPv4 header fields. A 64-bit Identifier value is carried
   in an option header. So, the detailed explanation of the ILNPv4
   packet header is to be found in [ILNP-v4OPTS].


4.  TRANSPORT-LAYER CHANGES

   ILNP uses an Identifier value in order to form the invariant
   end-system state for end-to-end protocols. Currently, transport
   protocols such as TCP and UDP use all the bits of an IP address
   to form such state. So, transport protocol implementations MUST
   be modified in order to operate over ILNP.

   4.1 End-system state

   Currently, TCP and UDP, for example, use the 4-tuple:

     <local IP address, remote IP address, local port, remote port>

   for the end-system state for a transport layer end-point. For
   ILNP, implementations must be modified to instead use:




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                          [Page 9]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


     <local Identifier, remote Identifier, local port, remote port>

   4.2 TCP/UDP Checksum Handling

   In IP-based implementations, the TCP or UDP pseudo-header
   checksum calculations include all the bits of the IP address.
   By contrast, when calculating the TCP or UDP pseudo-header
   checksums for use with ILNP, only the Identifier values are
   included in the TCP or UDP pseudo-header checksum calculations.

   To minimise the changes required within transport protocol
   implementations, and to maximise interoperability, current
   implementations are modified to zero the Locator fields (only for
   the purpose of TCP or UDP checksum calculations).  For example,
   for ILNPv6, this means that the existing code for IPv6 can be
   used, with the ILNPv6 Identifier bits occupying the lower 64 bits
   of the IPv6 address field, and the upper 64 bits of the IPv6
   address filed being set to zero.  For ILNPv4, the Identifier
   fields are carried in an IPv4 Option [ILNP-v4OPTS].

   Section 7 describes methods for incremental deployment of this
   ILNP-specific change and backwards compatibility with non-
   upgraded nodes (e.g. classic IPv4 or IPv6 nodes) in more detail.


   4.3 ICMP Checksum Handling

   To maximise backwards compatibility, the ILNPv6 ICMP checksum is
   always calculated in the same way as for IPv6 ICMP.  Similarly,
   the ILNPv4 ICMP checksum is always calculated in the same way as
   for IPv4 ICMP.


5.  ILNP COMMUNICATION CACHE (ILCC)

   For operational purposes, implementations need to have a local
   cache of state information that allow communication end-points to
   be constructed and for communication protocols to operate. Such
   cache information is common today, e.g. IPv4 nodes commonly
   maintain an Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) cache with
   information relating to current and recent Correspondent Nodes;
   IPv6 nodes maintain a Neighbor Discovery (ND) table with
   information relating to current and CNs. Likewise, ILNP maintains
   an Identifier-Locator Communication Cache (ILCC) with information
   relating to the operation of ILNP.

   The ILCC is a (logical) set of data values required for ILNP to
   operate. These values are maintained by the endpoints of each



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 10]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   ILNP communications session.

   In theory, this cache is within the ILNP network-layer. However,
   many network protocol implementations do not have strict protocol
   separation or layering. So there is no requirement that the ILCC
   be kept partitioned from transport-layer protocols.

   Note that in many implementations, much of the information
   required for the ILCC may already be present. Where some
   additional information is required for ILNP, from an engineering
   viewpoint, the ILCC could be implemented by extending or
   enhancing existing data structures within existing
   implementations. For example, by adding appropriate flags to the
   data structures in existing implementations.

   Note that the ILCC does not impose any extra state maintenance
   requirements for applications or applications servers. For
   example, in the case of, say, HTTP, there will be no additional
   state for a server to maintain, and any TCP state will be handled
   by the ILNP code in the OS just as for IP.

5.1  Formal Definition

   The ILCC contains information about both the local node and also
   about current or recent correspondent nodes, as follows.

   Information about the local node:

      - Each currently valid Identifier value,
             including its Identifier Precedence
           and whether it is active at present.

      - Each currently valid Locator value, including
           its associated local interface(s),
             its Locator Precedence, and
           whether it is active at present.

      - Each currently valid IL Vector (I-LV), including
           whether it is active at present.

   Information about each correspondent node:

      - Most recent set of Identifiers,
             including lifetime and validity for each.

      - Most recent set of Locators,
             including lifetime and validity for each.




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 11]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


      - Nonce value for packets from the local host
             to the correspondent.

      - Nonce value for packets from the correspondent
             to the local host.


   In the above list for the ILNP Communication Cache:

    - A "valid" item is usable, from an administrative point of
      view, but might or might not be in use at present.

    - The "validity" parameter for the correspondent node indicates
      one of several different states for a datum. These include at
      least the following:

        - "valid"   : data is usable and has not expired.

     - "active"  : data is usable, has not expired,
                         and is in active use at present.

        - "expired" : data is still in use at present,
                         but is beyond its expiration (i.e.
                         without a replacement value).

        - "aged"    : data was recently in use, but is not
                         in active use at present, and is
                         beyond its expiration.

     - The "lifetime" parameter is an implementation-specific
       representation of the validity lifetime for the associated
       data element. In normal operation, the Lifetime for a
       correspondent node's Locator(s) are learned from the DNS
       Time-To-Live (DNS TTL) value associated with DNS records
       (NID, L32, L64 etc) of the FQDN owner name of the
       correspondent node. For time, a node might use UTC
       (e.g. via Network Time Protocol) or perhaps some
       node-specific time (e.g. seconds since node boot).

5.2 Ageing ILCC Entries

   As a practical matter, it is not sensible to flush all Locator
   values associated with an existing session's correspondent node
   even if the DNS TTL associated with those Locator values expires.

   In some situations, a CN might be disconnected briefly when
   moving location (e.g. immediate handover). If this happens, there
   might be a brief pause before the Correspondent Node can (a)



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 12]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   update its own L values in the DNS, and (b) send an ICMP Locator
   Update message to the local node with information about its new
   location. Implementers ought to try to maintain ILNP sessions
   even when such events occur.

   Instead, Locator values cached for a correspondent node SHOULD be
   marked as "aged" when their TTL has expired, but retained until
   either the next Locator Update message is received, there is
   other indication that a given Locator is not working any longer,
   there is positive indication that the Correspondent Node has
   terminated the session (e.g. TCP RST), until some appropriate
   timeout (e.g. 2*MSL for TCP), or the session has been inactive
   for several minutes and the storage space associated with the
   aged entry needs to be reclaimed.

   Separately, received authenticated Locator Update messages cause
   the ILCC entries listed above to be updated.

   Similarly, if there is indication that a session with a
   Correspondent Node remains active and the DNS TTL associated with
   that Correspondent Node's active Identifier value(s) has expired,
   those remote Identifier value(s) ought to be marked as "expired"
   but retained since they are in active use.

5.3  Large Numbers of Locators

   Implementers should keep in mind that a node or site might have a
   large number of concurrent Locators, and should ensure that a
   system fault does not arise if the system receives an authentic
   ICMP Locator Update containing a large number of Locator values.

5.4  Lookups into the ILCC

   For received packets containing an ILNP Nonce Option, lookups in
   the ILCC MUST use the <remote Identifier, Nonce> tuple as the
   lookup key.

   For all other ILNP packets, lookups in the ILNP Correspondent
   Cache MUST use the <remote Locator, remote Identifier> tuple,
   i.e. the remote I-LV, as the lookup key.

   These two checks between them facilitate situations where,
   perhaps due to deployment of Local-scope Identifiers, more than
   one correspondent node is using the same Identifier value.

   (NOTE: Other mechanisms, such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, ensure
   that 2 different nodes are incapable of using a given IL-V
   at the same location i.e., on the same link.)



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 13]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   While Locators are omitted from the transport-layer checksum, an
   implementation SHOULD use Locator values to distinguish between
   correspondents coincidentally using the same Identifier value
   (e.g. due to deployment of Local-scope Identifier values) when
   demultiplexing to determine which application(s) should receive
   the user data delivered by the transport-layer protocol.


6.  HANDLING LOCATION/CONNECTIVITY CHANGES

   In normal operation, an ILNP node uses the DNS for initial
   rendezvous in setting up sessions. The use of DNS for initial
   rendezvous with mobile nodes was earlier proposed by others
   [PHG02] and then separately re-invented by the current authors
   later on.

6.1  Node Location/Connectivity Changes

   To handle the move of a node or a change to the upstream
   connectivity of a multi-homed node, we add a new ICMP control
   message [ILNP-ICMPv4] [ILNP-ICMPv6]. The ICMP Locator Update (LU)
   message is used by a node to inform its existing CNs that the set
   of valid Locators for the node has changed.  This mechanism can
   be used to add newly valid Locators, to remove no longer valid
   Locators, or to do both at the same time. The LU mechanisms is
   analogous to the Binding Update mechanism in Mobile IPv6, but in
   ILNP, such messages are used any time Locator value changes need
   to be notified to CNs, e.g. for multi-homed hosts as well as for
   mobile hosts.

   Further, if the node wishes to be able to receive new incoming
   sessions, the node uses Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC3007] to
   ensure that a correct set of Locator values are present in the
   appropriate DNS records (i.e. L32, L64) in the DNS for that node
   [ILNP-DNS]. This enables any new correspondents to correctly
   initiate a new session with the node at its new location.

   While the Locator Update control message could be an entirely new
   protocol running over UDP, for example, there is no obvious
   advantage to creating a new protocol rather than using a new ICMP
   message.  So ILNP defines a new ICMP Locator Update message
   for both IPv4 and IPv6.

6.2  Network Connectivity/Locator Changes

   As a DNS performance optimisation, the LP DNS resource record MAY
   be used to avoid requiring each node on a subnetwork to update
   its DNS L64 record entries when that subnetwork's location



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 14]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   (e.g. upstream connectivity) changes [ILNP-DNS].  This can reduce
   the number of DNS updates required when a subnetwork moves from
   Order(number of nodes on subnetwork) to Order(1).

   In this case, the nodes on the subnetwork each would have an LP
   record pointing to a common Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
   used to name that subnetwork. In turn, that subnetwork's domain
   name would have one or more L64 record(s) in the DNS. Since the
   contents of an LP record are stable, relatively long DNS TTL
   values can be associated with these records facilitating DNS
   caching. By contrast, the DNS TTL of an L32 or L64 record for a
   mobile or multi-homed node should be small.  Experimental work at
   the University of St Andrews indicates that the DNS continues to
   work well even with very low (e.g. zero) DNS TTL values [BA11].

   Correspondents of a node on a mobile subnetwork using this DNS
   performance optimisation would initially perform a normal FQDN
   lookup for a node. If that lookup returned another FQDN in an LP
   record as additional data, then the correspondent would perform a
   lookup on that FQDN and expect an L32 or L64 record returned as
   additional data, in order to learn the Locator value to use to
   reach that target node. (Of course, a lookup that did not return
   any ILNP-related DNS records would result in a normal IPv4 or
   IPv6 session being initiated.)


7. SUBNETTING

   For ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, the Locator value includes the subnetting
   information, as that also is topological information.  As well as
   being architecturally correct, the placement of subnetting as
   part of the Locator is also convenient from an engineering point
   of view in both IPv4 and IPv6.

   We consider that a Locator value, L consists of two parts:

   - L_pp: the Locator prefix part, which occupies the most
     significant bits in the address (for both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6).

   - L_ss: Locator subnetwork selector, which occupies bits just
     after the L_pp.

   For each of ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, L_pp gets its value from the
   provider-assigned routing prefix for IPv4 and IPv6, respectively.
   For L_ss, in each case of ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, the L_ss bits are
   located in the part of the address space which you might expect
   them to be located if IPv4 or IPv6 addresses were being used,
   respectively.



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 15]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


7.1 Subnetting for ILNPv6

   For ILNPv6, recall that the Locator value is encoded to be
   syntactically similar to an IPv6 address prefix, as shown in
   Figure 7.1.

   /* IPv6 */
   | 3 |     45 bits         |  16 bits  |     64 bits             |
   +---+---------------------+-----------+-------------------------+
   |001|global routing prefix| subnet ID |  Interface Identifier   |
   +---+---------------------+-----------+-------------------------+

   /* ILNPv6 */
   |             64 bits                 |     64 bits             |
   +---+---------------------+-----------+-------------------------+
   |          Locator (L64)              |  Node Identifier (NID)  |
   +---+---------------------+-----------+-------------------------+
   +<-------- L_pp --------->+<- L_ss -->+

     L_pp = Locator prefix part (assigned IPv6 prefix)
     L_ss = Locator subnet selector (locally managed subnet ID)

     Figure 7.1: IPv6 address format [RFC3587] as used in ILNPv6,
     showing how subnets can be identified.

   Note that the subnet ID forms part of the Locator value. Note
   also that [RFC6177] allows the global routing prefix to be more
   than 45 bits, and for the subnet ID to be smaller, but still
   preserving the 64-bit size of the Locator.

7.2 Subnetting for ILNPv4

   For ILNPv4, the L_pp value is an IPv4 routing prefix as used
   today, which is typically less than 32 bits. However, the ILNPv4
   Locator value is carried in the 32-bit IP address space, so the
   bits not used for the routing prefix could be used for L_ss, e.g.
   for a /24 IPv4 prefix, the situation would be as shown in Fig
   7.2.

              24 bits           8 bits
     +------------------------+----------+
     |         Locator (L32)             |
     +------------------------+----------+
     +<------- L_pp --------->+<- L_ss ->+

     L_pp = Locator prefix part (assigned IPv4 prefix)
     L_ss = Locator subnet selector (locally managed subnet ID)




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 16]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


     Figure 7.2: IPv4 address format for /24 IPv4 prefix, as used in
     ILNPv4, showing how subnets can be identified.

   Note that the L_ss occupies bits that in an IPv4 address would
   normally be the host part of the address, which the site network
   could use for sub-netting in any case.

7.3 Subnetting for router-router links in IPv6/ILNPv6

   There is a special case of /127 prefixes used in router-router,
   point-to-point links links for IPv6 [RFC6164]. ILNPv6 does not
   preclude such use.


8. DNS CONSIDERATIONS

   ILNP makes use of DNS for name resolution, as does IP.  Unlike
   IP, ILNP also uses DNS to support features such as mobility and
   multi-homing. While such usage is appropriate use of the DNS, it
   is important to discuss operational and engineering issues that
   may impact DNS usage.

8.1 Secure Dynamic DNS Update

   When a host that expects incoming connections changes one or more
   of its Locator values, the host normally uses the IETF Secure
   Dynamic DNS Update protocol [RFC3007] to update the set of
   currently valid Locator values associated with its Fully
   Qualified Domain Name (FQDN). This ensures that the authoritative
   DNS server for its FQDN will be able to generate an accurate set
   of Locator values if the DNS server receives DNS name resolution
   request for its FQDN.

   Liu & Albitz [LA06] report that Secure Dynamic DNS Update has
   been supported on the client-side for several years now in widely
   deployed operating systems (e.g. MS Windows, Apple MacOS X, UNIX,
   and Linux) and also in DNS server software (e.g. BIND). Publicly
   available product data sheets indicate that some other DNS server
   software packages, such as that from Nominum, also support this
   capability.

   For example, Microsoft Windows XP (and later versions), the
   freely distributable BIND DNS software package (used in Apple
   MacOS X and in most UNIX systems), and the commercial Nominum DNS
   server all implement support for Secure Dynamic DNS Update and
   are known to interoperate [LA06]. There are credible reports
   that when a site deploys Microsoft's Active Directory, the site
   (silently) automatically deploys Secure Dynamic DNS Update



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 17]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   [LA06]. So, many sites have already deployed Secure Dynamic DNS
   Update even though they are not actively using it (and might not
   be aware they have already deployed that protocol) [LA06].

   So DNS update via Secure Dynamic DNS Update is not only
   standards-based, but also readily available in widely deployed
   systems today.


8.3 New DNS RR types

   As part of this proposal, additional DNS Resource Records have
   been proposed in a separate document [ILNP-DNS]. These new
   records are summarised in Table 6.1.

       new DNS RR type |  Purpose
      -----------------+------------------------------------------------
             NID       | store the value of a Node Identifier
             L32       | store the value of a 32-bit Locator for ILNPv4
             L64       | store the value of a 64-bit Locator for ILNPv6
             LP        | points to a (several) L32 and/or L64 record(s)
      -----------------+------------------------------------------------

      Table 6.1: Summary of new DNS RR types for ILNP

   With this proposal, mobile or multi-homed nodes and sites are
   expected to use the existing "Secure Dynamic DNS Update" protocol
   to keep their Node Identifier (NID) and Locator (L32 and/or L43)
   records correct in their authoritative DNS server(s) [RFC3007]
   [ILNP-DNS].

   Reverse DNS lookups, to find a node's Fully Qualified Domain Name
   from the combination of a Locator and related Identifier value,
   can be performed as at present.

8.4 DNS TTL values for ILNP RRS types

   Existing DNS specifications require that DNS clients and DNS
   resolvers honour the TTL values provided by the DNS servers. In
   the context of this proposal, short DNS TTL values are assigned
   to particular DNS records to ensure that the ubiquitous DNS
   caching resolvers do not cache volatile values (e.g. Locator
   records of a mobile node) and consequently return stale
   information to new requestors.

   The time-to-live (TTL) values for L32 and L64 records may have to
   be relatively low (perhaps a few seconds) in order to support
   mobility and multi-homing. Low TTL values may be of concern to



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 18]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   administrators who might think that this would reduce efficacy of
   DNS caching increase DNS load significantly.

   Previous research by others indicates that DNS caching is largely
   ineffective, with the exception of NS records and the addresses
   of DNS servers referred to by NS records [SBK02]. This means
   DNS caching performance and DNS load will not be adversely
   affected by assigning very short TTL values (down to zero) to the
   Locator records of typical nodes for a edge site [BA11]. It
   also means that it is preferable to deploy the DNS server
   function on nodes that have longer DNS TTL values, rather than on
   nodes that have shorter DNS TTL values.

   LP records normally are stable and will have relatively long TTL
   values, even if the L32 or L64 records they point to have values
   that have relatively low TTL values.

   Identifier values might be very long-lived (e.g. days) when they
   have been generated from an IEEE MAC address on the
   system. Identifier values might have a shorter lifetime
   (e.g. hours or minutes) if they have been cryptographically-
   generated [RFC3972], or have been created by the IPv6 Privacy
   Extensions [RFC4941], or otherwise have the EUI-64 scope bit set
   to "local-scope". Note that when ILNP is used, the cryptographic
   generation method described in RFC 3972 is used only for the
   Identifier, omitting the Locator, thereby preserving roaming
   capability. Note that a given ILNP session normally will use a
   single Identifier value for the lifetime of that session.

8.5 IP/ILNP dual operation and transition

   During a long transition period, a node that is ILNP-capable
   SHOULD have not only have NID and L32/L64 (or NID and LP) records
   present in its authoritative DNS server, but also SHOULD have
   A/AAAA records in the DNS for the benefit of non-upgraded
   nodes. Then, when any CN performs an FQDN lookup for that node,
   it will receive the A/AAAA with the appropriate NID, L32/L64
   and/or LP records as "additional data".

   Existing DNS specifications require that a DNS resolver or DNS
   client ignore unrecognised DNS record types. So gratuitously
   appending NID and Locator (i.e., L32, L64, or LP) records as
   "additional data" in DNS responses to A/AAAA queries ought not to
   create any operational issues.  So, IP only nodes would use the
   A/AAAA RRs, but ILNP-capable nodes would be able to use the NID,
   L32/L64 and/or LP records are required.

   There is nothing to prevent this capability being implemented



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 19]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   strictly inside a DNS server, whereby the DNS server synthesises
   a set of A/AAAA records to advertise from the NID and Locator
   (i.e., L32, L64, or LP) values that the node has kept updated in
   that DNS server. Indeed, such a capability may be desirable,
   reducing the amount of manual configuration required for a site,
   and reducing the potential for errors as the A/AAAA records would
   be automatically generated.

9.  IP Security for ILNP

   The primary conceptual difference from ordinary IP Security
   (IPsec) is that ILNP IP Security omits all use of, and all
   reference to, Locator values.  This leads to several small,
   but important, changes to IP Security when it is used with
   ILNP sessions.

9.1 IPsec Security Associations enhancements for ILNP

   IPsec Security Associations for ILNP only include the Identifier
   values for the endpoints, and omit the Locator values.  As an
   implementation detail, implementations MUST be able to
   distinguish between different Security Associations with
   correspondents (at different locations, with different ILNP Nonce
   values in use) that happen to use the same Identifier values
   (e.g. due to an inadvertent Identifier collision when using
   identifier values generated by using the IPv6 Privacy Addressing
   extension).  One possible way to distinguish between such
   different sessions is to maintain a mapping between the IPsec
   Security Association Database (SAD) entry and the corresponding
   ILCC entry.

   Consistent with this enhancement to the definition of an IPsec
   Security Association, when processing received IPsec packets
   associated with an ILNP session, ILNP implementations ignore the
   Locator bits of the received packet and only consider the
   Identifier bits.  This means, for example, that if an ILNP
   correspondent node moves to a different subnetwork, and thus is
   using a different Source Locator in the header of its ILNP IPsec
   packets, the ILNP session will continue to work and will continue
   to be secure.

   Since implementations of ILNP are also required to support IP,
   implementers need to ensure that ILNP IPsec Security Associations
   can be distinguished from ordinary IPsec Security Associations.
   The details of this are left to the implementer.  As an example,
   one possible implementation strategy would be to retain a single
   IPsec Security Association Database (SAD), but add an internal
   flag bit to each entry of that IPsec Security Association



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 20]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   Database (SAD) to indicate whether ILNP is in use for that
   particular IPsec Security Association.

9.2 IP Authentication Header enhancements for ILNP

   Similarly, when ILNP is in use for a session, the IPsec
   Authentication Header (AH) only includes the Identifier values
   for the endpoints in its authentication calculations, and omits
   the Source Locator and Destination Locator fields from its
   authentication calculations. This enables IPsec AH to work well
   even when used with ILNP localised numbering []ILNP-ADV] or other
   situation where a Locator value might change during transit.

9.3 Key Management Considerations

   In order to distinguish at the network-layer between multiple
   ILNP nodes that happen to be using the same Node Identifier
   values (e.g. because the identifier values were generated using
   the IPv6 Privacy Addressing method), key management packets being
   used to setup an ILNP IPsec session MUST include the ILNP Nonce
   option.

   Similarly, key management protocols used with IPsec are enhanced
   to deprecate use of IP addresses as identifiers and to substitute
   the use of the new Node Identifier values for that purpose.  This
   results in a Security Association that is independent of the
   Locator values that might be used.

   For ILNPv6 implementations, the ILNP Node Identifier (64-bits) is
   smaller than the IPv6 Address (128-bits).  So support for ILNPv6
   IPsec is accomplished by zeroing the upper-64 bits of the IPv6
   Address fields in the application-layer key management protocol,
   while retaining the Node Identifier value in the lower-64 bits of
   the application-layer key management protocol.

   For ILNPv4 implementations, enhancements to the key management
   protocol likely will be needed, because existing key management
   protocols rely on 32-bit IPv4 addresses, while ILNP Node
   Identifiers are 64-bits.  Such enhancements are beyond the scope
   of this specification.


10.  BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY & INCREMENTAL DEPLOYMENT

   Experience with IPv6 deployment over the past many years has
   shown that it is important for any new network protocol to
   provide backwards compatibility with the deployed IP base and
   should be incrementally deployable, ideally requiring



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 21]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   modification of only those nodes that wish to use ILNP and not
   requiring the modification of nodes that do not intend to use
   ILNP. The two instances of ILNP, ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, are intended
   to be, respectively, backwards compatible with, and incrementally
   deployable on, the existing IPv4 and IPv6 installed bases.
   Indeed, ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 can each be seen, from an engineering
   viewpoint, as supersets of the IPv4 and IPv6, respectively.

   However, in some cases, ILNP introduces functions that supersede
   equivalent functions available in IP. For example, ILNP has a
   mobility model, and so does not need to use the models for Mobile
   IPv4 or Mobile IPv6.

   As ILNP changes the use of end-to-end namespaces, for the most
   part, it is only end-systems that need to be modified. However,
   in order to leverage existing engineering (e.g. existing
   protocols), in some cases, there is a compromise, and these are
   highlighted in this section.

10.1 Priorities in the design of ILNPv6 and ILNPv4

   In the engineering design of ILNPv6 and ILNPv4, we have used the
   following priorities. In some ways, this choice is arbitrary, and
   it may be equally valid to "invert" these priorities for a
   different architectural and engineering design.

     1. Infrastructure

        As much of the deployed IP network infrastructure should be
        used without change. That is, routers and switches should
        require minimal or zero modifications in order to run
        ILNP. As much as possible of the existing installed base of
        core protocols should be re-used.

     2. Core protocols

        As much of the deployed network control protocols, such as
        routing, should be used without change. That is, existing
        routing protocols and switch configuration should require
        minimal or zero modifications in order to run ILNP.

     3. Scope of end-system changes

        Any nodes that do not need to run ILNP should not need to be
        upgraded. It should be possible to have a site network that
        has a mix of IP-only and ILNP-capable nodes without any
        changes required to the IP-only nodes.




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 22]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


     4. Applications

        There should be minimal impact on applications, even though
        ILNP requires end-to-end protocols to be upgraded. Indeed,
        for those applications that are "well-behaved" (e.g. do not
        use IP address values directly for application state or
        application configuration), there should be little or no
        effort required in enabling them to operate over ILNP.

   Each of these items is discussed in its own section below.


10.2 Infrastructure

   ILNP is designed to be deployed on existing infrastructure. No
   new infrastructure is required to run ILNP as it will be
   implemented as a software upgrade impacting only end-to-end
   protocols. Existing routing protocols can be re-used: no new
   routing protocols are required. This means that network operators
   and service providers do not need to learn about, test, and
   deploy new protocols, or change the structure of their network in
   order for ILNP to be deployed.  Exceptionally, edge routers
   supporting ILNPv4 hosts will need to support an enhanced version
   of ARP.

10.3 Core protocols

   Existing routing and other control protocols should not need to
   change in devices such as switches and routers. We believe this
   to be true for ILNPv6.  However, for ILNPv4, we believe that ARP
   will need to be enhanced in edge routers (or layer-3 switches)
   that support ILNPv4 hosts.  Backbone and transit routers still
   ought not require changes for either ILNPv4 or ILNPv6.

   For both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6, the basic packet format for packets
   re-uses that format that is seen by routers for IPv4 and IPv6
   respectively. Specifically, as the ILNP Locator value is always a
   routing prefix (either IPv4 or IPv6), routing protocols should
   work unchanged.

   Both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 introduce new header options (e.g Nonce
   Option messages) and ICMP messages (e.g. Locator Update messages)
   which are used to enable end-to-end signalling. For packet
   forwarding, depending on the forwarding policies used by some
   providers or site border routers, there may need to be
   modifications to those policies to allow the new header options
   and new ICMP messages to be forwarded.  However, as the header
   options and new ICMP messages are end-to-end, such modifications



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 23]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   are likely to be in configuration files (or firewall policy on
   edge routers), as core routers do NOT need to parse and act upon
   the information contained in the header options or ICMP messages.


10.4 Scope of end-system changes

   Only end-systems that need to use ILNP need to be updated in
   order for ILNP to be used at a site.

   There are three exceptions to this statement as follows:

     a) ILNPv4 ARP: as the Identifier value for IPv4 cannot fit into
        the normal 20-byte IPv4 packet header (a header extension is
        used), ARP must be modified. This only impacts end-systems
        that use ILNPv4 and those switches or site-border routers
        that are the first hop from an ILNPv4 node. For ILNPv6, as
        the I and L values fit into the existing basic IPv6 packet,
        IPv6 Neighbour Discovery can operate without modification

     b) Use of IP NAT: Where IP NAT or NAPT is in use for a site,
        existing NAT/NAPT device will re-write address fields in
        ILNPv4 packets or ILNPv6 packets. To avoid this, the NAT
        should either (i) be configured to allow the pass-through of
        packets originating from ILNP-capable nodes (e.g. by
        filtering on source address fields in the IP header);
        or (ii) should be enhanced to recognise ILNPv4 or ILNPv6
        packets (e.g. by looking for the ILNP Nonce option).

     c) Site border routers (SBRs) in ILNP Advanced Deployment
        scenarios: There are options to use an ILNP-capable site
        border router (SBR) as described in another document
        [ILNP-ADV]. In such scenarios, the SBR(s) need to be
        ILNP-capable.

   Other than these exceptions, it is entirely possible to have a
   site that uses a mix of IP and ILNP nodes and requires no changes
   to nodes other than the nodes that wish to use ILNP. For example,
   if a user on a site wishes to have his laptop use ILNPv6, only
   that laptop would need to have an upgraded stack: no other
   devices (end-systems, layer-2 switches or routers) at that site
   would need to be upgraded.


10.5 Applications

   As noted, in the Architecture Description [ILNP-ARCH], those
   applications that do not use IP address values in application



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 24]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   state or configuration data are considered to be "well-behaved".
   Applications that work today through a NAT or NAPT device without
   application-specific support are also considered "well behaved".
   Such applications might use DNS FQDNs or application-specific
   name spaces. (Note Well: application-specific name spaces should
   not be derived from IP address values).

   For well-behaved applications, replacing IP with ILNP should have
   no impact. That is, well-behaved applications should work
   unmodified over ILNP.

   Those applications that use directly IP address values in
   application state or configuration will need to be modified for
   operation over ILNP. Examples of such applications include:

    - FTP: which uses IP address values in the application layer
      protocol.  In practice, use of Secure Copy (SCP) is growing,
      while use of FTP is either flat or declining, in part due
      to the improved security provided by SCP.

    - SNMP: which uses IP address values in MIB definitions, and
      values derived from IP address values in SNMP object names.

   Further experimentation in this area is planned to validate
   these details.

10.6 Interworking between IP and ILNP

   A related topic is interworking: for example, how would an IPv6
   node communicate with an ILNPv6 node? Currently, we make the
   assumption that ILNP nodes "drop down" to using IP when
   communicating with a non-ILNP capable node, i.e. there is no
   interworking as such. In the future, it may be beneficial to
   define interworking scenarios that do not rely on having ILNP
   nodes fall back to IP, for example by the use of suitable
   protocol translation gateways or middleboxes.

   For now, a simplified summary of the process for interaction
   between ILNP hosts and non-ILNP hosts is as follows:

   a) For a host initiating communication using DNS, the resolution
      of the FQDN for the remote host will return at least one NID
      record and at least one of an L32 record (for ILNPv4) or an
      L64 record (for ILNPv6). Then the host knows that the remote
      host supports ILNP.

   b) When a host has I and L values for a remote host, the initial
      packet to initiate communication MUST contain a Nonce Header



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 25]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


      [ILNP-v4OPTS] [ILNP-NONCEv6] which indicates to the remote
      host that this packet is attempting to set-up an ILNP session.

   c) When a receiving host sees a Nonce Header, if it DOES support
      ILNP it will proceed to set-up an ILNP session.

   d) When a receiving host sees a Nonce Header, if it DOES NOT
      support ILNP it will reject the packet and this will be
      indicated to the sender through an ICMP message [ILNP-ICMPv6]
      [ILNP-ICMPv4]. Upon receiving the ICMP messages, the sender
      will re-initiate communication using standard IPv4 or IPv6.

   Many observers in the community expect IPv4 to remain in place
   for a long time even though IPv6 has been available for over a
   decade. With a similar anticipation, it is likely that in the
   future there will be a mixed environment of both IP and ILNP
   hosts. Until there is a better understanding of the deployment
   and usage scenarios that will develop, it is not clear what
   interworking scenarios would be useful to define and focus on
   between IP and ILNP.


11.  SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

   There are numerous security considerations for ILNP from an
   engineering viewpoint. Overall, ILNP and its capabilities are no
   less secure than IP and equivalent IP capabilities.  In some
   cases, ILNP has the potential to be more secure, or offer
   security capability in a more harmonised manner, for example with
   ILNP's use of IPsec in conjunction with multi-homing and mobility.
   [ILNP-ARCH] describes several security considerations that apply
   to ILNP and is included here by reference.

   ILNP offers an enhanced version of IP Security (IPsec).  The
   details of IP Security for ILNP were described separately above.
   All ILNP implementations MUST support the use of the IP
   Authentication Header (AH) for ILNP and also the IP Encapsulating
   Security Payload (ESP) for ILNP, but deployment and use of IPsec
   for ILNP remains a matter for local operational security policy.

11.1  Authenticating ICMP Messages

   Separate documents propose a new IPv4 Option [ILNP-v4OPTS] and a
   new IPv6 Destination Option [ILNP-NONCEv6].  Each of these
   options can be used to carry a session nonce end-to-end between
   communicating nodes.  That nonce provides protection against
   off-path attacks on an Identifier/Locator session. The Nonce
   options are used ONLY for ILNP and not for IP. The nonce values



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 26]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   are exchanged in the initial packets of an ILNP session by
   including them in those initial/handshake packets.

   ALL ICMP Locator Update messages MUST include an ILNP Nonce
   option and also MUST include the correct ILNP Nonce value for the
   claimed sender and intended recipient of that ICMP Locator Update
   message.  There are no exceptions to this rule.  ICMP Locator
   Update messages MAY be protected by IP Security (IPsec), but
   still MUST include an ILNP Nonce option and the ILNP Nonce
   option still MUST include the correct ILNP Nonce value.

   When using ILNP for an existing session, and a node changes its
   Locator set, it SHOULD include the Nonce Destination Option in
   the first few data packets sent using a new Locator value, so
   that the recipient can validate the received data packets as
   valid (despite having an unexpected Source Locator value).

   Any ILNP Locator Update messages received without an ILNP Nonce
   option MUST be discarded as forgeries.

   Any ILNP Locator Update messages received with an ILNP Nonce
   option, but do NOT have the correct ILNP Nonce value inside the
   ILNP Nonce option, MUST be discarded as forgeries.

   When the claimed sender of an ICMP message is known to be a
   current ILNP correspondent of the recipient (e.g. has a valid,
   non-expired, ILCC entry), then any ICMP error messages from that
   claimed sender MUST include the ILNP Nonce option and MUST
   include the correct ILNP Nonce value (i.e. correct for that
   sender recipient pair) in that ILNP Nonce option.

   When the claimed sender of an ICMP error message is known to be
   a current ILNP correspondent of the recipient (e.g. has a valid,
   non-expired, ILCC entry), then any ICMP error messages from that
   claimed sender that are received without an ILNP Nonce option
   MUST be discarded as forgeries.

   When the claimed sender of an ICMP error message is known to be
   a current ILNP correspondent of the recipient (e.g. has a valid,
   non-expired, ILCC entry), then any ICMP error messages from that
   claimed sender that contain an ILNP Nonce option, but do NOT
   have the correct ILNP Nonce value inside the ILNP Nonce option,
   MUST be discarded as forgeries.

   ICMP messages (not including ICMP Locator Update messages) with
   a claimed sender that is NOT known to be a current ILNP
   correspondent of the recipient (e.g. does not have a valid,
   non-expired, ILCC entry) MAY include the ILNP Nonce option,



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 27]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   but in this case the ILNP Nonce option is ignored by the
   recipient upon receipt, since the recipient has no way to
   authenticated the received ILNP Nonce value.

   Received ICMP messages (not including ICMP Locator Update
   messages) with a claimed sender that is NOT known to be a current
   ILNP correspondent of the recipient (e.g. does not have a valid,
   non-expired, ILCC entry) do NOT require the ILNP Nonce option,
   because the security risks are no different than for deployed
   IPv4 and IPv6 -- provided that the received ICMP message is not
   an ICMP Locator Update message.  Such ICMP messages
   (e.g. Destination Unreachable, Packet Too Big) might legitimately
   originate in an intermediate system along the path of an ILNP
   session.  That intermediate system might not be ILNP capable.
   Even if ILNP capable itself, that intermediate system might not
   know which packets it forwards are part of ILNP sessions.

   When ILNP is in use, IP Security for ILNP also MAY be used to
   protect stronger protections for ICMP packets associated with an
   ILNP session.  Even in this case, the ILNP Nonce option also MUST
   be present and MUST contain the correct ILNP Nonce value.  This
   simplifies packet processing, and also enables rapid discard of
   any forged packets from an off-path attacker that lack either the
   ILNP Nonce option or the correct ILNP Nonce value -- without
   requiring computationally-expensive IPsec processing.  Received
   ICMP messages that are protected by ILNP IP Security, but fail
   the recipient's IP Security checks, MUST be dropped as forgeries.
   If a deployment chooses to use ILNP IPsec ESP to protect its ICMP
   messages and is NOT also using ILNP IPsec AH with those messages,
   then the ILNP Nonce option MUST be placed in the ILNP packet
   after the ILNP IPsec ESP header, rather than before the ILNP
   IPsec ESP header, to ensure that the Nonce option is protected in
   transit.

   Receipt of any ICMP message that is dropped or discarded as a
   forgery SHOULD cause the details of the received forged ICMP
   packet (e.g. Source and Destination Locators / Source and
   Destination Identifiers / Source and Destination IP addresses,
   ICMP message type, receiving interface, receive date, receive
   time) to be logged in the receiving system's security logs.
   Implementations MAY rate-limit such logging in order to reduce
   operational risk of denial-of-service attacks on the system
   logging functions.  The details of system logging are
   implementation-specific.


11.2  Forged Identifier Attacks




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 28]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   The ILNP Communication Cache (ILCC) contains two unidirectional
   nonce values (one used in control messages sent by this node, a
   different one used to authenticate messages from the other node)
   for each active or recent ILNP session. The ILCC also contains
   the currently valid set of Locators and set of Identifiers for
   each correspondent node.

   If a received ILNP packet contains valid Identifier values and a
   valid Destination Locator, but contains a Source Locator value
   that is not present in the ILCC, the packet MUST be dropped as an
   invalid packet and a security event SHOULD be logged, UNLESS the
   packet also contains a Nonce Destination Option with the correct
   value used for packets from the node with that Source Identifier
   to this node. This prevents an off-path attacker from stealing an
   existing session.


12. PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS

   There are no additional privacy issues created by ILNP compared
   to IP.  Please see Section 10 of [ILNP-ARCH] for more detailed
   discussion of Privacy Considerations.

   ILNPv6 supports use of the IPv6 Privacy Extensions for Stateless
   Address Auto-configuration in IPv6 [RFC4941] to enable identity
   privacy (see also Section 2).

   Location Privacy can be provided by locator re-writing techniques
   as described in Section 7 of [ILNP-ADV].

   A description of various possibilities for obtaining both identity
   privacy and location privacy with ILNP can be found in [BAK11].


13.  OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

   This section covers various operational considerations relating
   to ILNP, including potential session liveness and reachability
   considerations and Key Management considerations. Again, the
   situation is similar to IP, but it is useful to explain the
   issues in relation to ILNP nevertheless.


13.1  Session Liveness and Reachability

   For bi-directional flows, such as a TCP session, each node knows
   whether the current path in use is working by the reception of
   data packets, acknowledgements, or both. Therefore, as with



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 29]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   TCP/IP, TCP/ILNP does not need special path probes. UDP/ILNP
   sessions with acknowledgements work similarly, and also do not
   need special path probes.

   In the deployed Internet, the sending node for a UDP/IP session
   without acknowledgements does not know for certain that all
   packets are received by the intended receiving node. Such
   UDP/ILNP sessions have the same properties as UDP/IP sessions in
   this respect. The receiver(s) of such an UDP/ILNP session SHOULD
   send a gratuitous IP packet containing an ILNP Nonce option to
   the sender, in order to enable the receiver to subsequently send
   ICMP Locator Updates if appropriate [ILNP-NONCEv6]. In this case,
   UDP/ILNP sessions fare better than UDP/IP sessions, still without
   using network path probes.

   A mobile (or multi-homed) node may change its connectivity more
   quickly than DNS can be updated. This situation is unlikely,
   particularly given the widespread use of link-layer mobility
   mechanisms (e.g. GSM, IEEE 802 bridging) in combination with
   network-layer mobility. However, the situation is equivalent to
   the situation where a traditional IP node is moving faster than
   the Mobile IPv4 or Mobile IPv6 agents/servers can be updated with
   the mobile node's new location.  So the issue is not new in any
   way to ILNP. In all cases, Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 and ILNP,
   a node moving that quickly might be temporarily unreachable until
   it remains at a given network-layer location (e.g. IP subnetwork,
   ILNP Locator value) long enough for the location update
   mechanisms (for Mobile IPv4, for Mobile IPv6, or ILNP) to catch
   up.

   Another potential issue for IP is what is sometimes called "Path
   Liveness" or, in the case of ILNP, "Locator Liveness". This
   refers to the question of whether an IP packet with a particular
   destination Locator value will be able to reach the intended
   destination network or not, given that some otherwise valid paths
   might be unusable by the sending node (e.g. due to security
   policy or other administrative choice). In fact, this issue has
   existed in the IPv4 Internet for decades.

   For example, an IPv4 server might have multiple valid IP
   addresses, each advertised to the world via an DNS A
   record. However, at a given moment in time, it is possible that a
   given sending node might not be able to use a given (otherwise
   valid) destination IPv4 address in an IP packet to reach that
   IPv4 server.

   Indeed, for ILNPv6, as the ILNP packet reuses the IPv6 packet
   header and uses IPv6 routing prefixes as Locator values, such



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 30]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   liveness considerations are no worse than they are for IPv6
   today. For example, for IPv6, if a host, H, performs a DNS lookup
   for an FQDN for remote host F, and receives a AAAA RR with IPv6
   address F_A, this does not mean necessarily that H can reach F on
   its F_A using its current connectivity, i.e. an IPv6 path may not
   be available from H to F at that point in time.

   So we see that using an Identifier/Locator Split architecture
   does not create this issue, nor does it make this issue worse
   than it is with the deployed IPv4 Internet.

   In ILNP, the same conceptual approach described in [RFC5534]
   (Locator Pair Exploration for SHIM6) can be reused.
   Alternatively, an ILNP node can reuse the existing IPv4 methods
   for determining whether a given path to the target destination is
   currently usable, for which existing methods leverage
   transport-layer session state information that the communicating
   end systems are already keeping for transport-layer protocol
   reasons.

   Lastly, it is important to note that the ICMP Locator Update
   mechanism described in [ILNP-ICMPv6] [ILNP-ICMPv4] is a
   performance optimisation, significantly shortening the
   network-layer handoff time if/when a correspondent changes
   location.  Architecturally, using ICMP is no different from
   using UDP, of course.

13.2  Key Management Considerations

   ILNP potentially has advantages over either form of Mobile IP
   with respect to key management, given that ILNP is using Secure
   Dynamic DNS Update -- which capability is much more widely
   available today in deployed desktop and server environments
   (e.g. Microsoft Windows, MacOS X, Linux, other UNIX), as well as
   being widely available today in deployed DNS server software
   (e.g. Microsoft and the freely available BIND) and appliances
   [LA06], than the Security enhancements needed by either Mobile
   IPv4 or Mobile IPv6.

   IETF work in progress is addressing use of DNS to support key
   management for entities having DNS Fully-Qualified Domain Names.

13.3  Point-to-Point Router Links

   As a special case, for the operational reasons described in
   [RFC6164], ILNPv6 deployments MAY continue to use classic IPv6
   with a /127 routing prefix on router to router point-to-point
   links (e.g. SONET/SDH).  Because an ILNPv6 packet and an IPv6



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 31]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   packet are indistinguishable for forwarding purposes to a transit
   router, this should not create any operational difficulty for
   ILNPv6 traffic travelling over such links.

14. REFERRALS & APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACES

   This section is concerned with support for using existing
   ("legacy") applications over ILNP, including both referrals and
   Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).

   ILNP does NOT require well-behaved applications be modified to
   use a new networking API, nor does it require applications be
   modified to use extensions to an existing API. Existing
   well-behaved IP applications should work over ILNP without
   modification using existing networking APIs.

14.1 BSD Sockets APIs

   The existing BSD Sockets API can continue to be used with ILNP
   underneath the API. That API can be implemented in a manner that
   hides the underlying protocol changes from the applications. For
   example, the combination of a Locator and an Identifier can be
   used with the API in the place of an IPv6 address.

   So it is believed that existing IP address referrals can continue
   to work properly in most cases. For a rapidly moving target node,
   referrals might break in at least some cases. The potential for
   referral breakage is necessarily dependent upon the specific
   application and implementation being considered.

   It is suggested, however, that a new, optional, more abstract, C
   language API be created so that new applications may avoid
   delving into low-level details of the underlying network
   protocols. Such an API would be useful today, even with the
   existing IPv4 and IPv6 Internet, whether or not ILNP were ever
   widely deployed.


14.2 Java (and other) APIs

   Most existing Java APIs already use abstracted network
   programming interfaces, for example in the java.Net.URL
   class. Because these APIs already hide the low-level
   network-protocol details from the applications, the applications
   using these APIs (and the APIs themselves) don't need any
   modification to work equally well with IPv4, IPv6, ILNP, and
   probably also HIP.




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 32]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   Other programming languages, such as C++, python and ruby, also
   provide higher-level APIs that abstract away from sockets, even
   though sockets may be used beneath those APIs.


14.3 Referrals in the Future

   The approach proposed in [ID-Referral] appears to be very
   suitable for use with ILNP, in addition to being suitable for use
   with the deployed Internet. Protocols using that approach would
   not need modification to have their referrals work well with
   IPv4, IPv6, ILNP, and probably also other network protocols
   (e.g. HIP).

   A sensible approach to referrals is to use Fully-Qualified Domain
   Names (FQDNs), as is commonly done today with web URLs. This
   approach is highly portable across different network protocols,
   even with both the IPv4 Internet or the IPv6 Internet.


15.  IANA CONSIDERATIONS

   There are no IANA considerations.

   (The RFC Editor is requested to remove this section prior to
   publication.)

16.  REFERENCES

16.1 Normative References

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
                Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
                March 1997.

   [RFC3007]   B. Wellington, "Secure Domain Name System
                Dynamic Update", RFC3007, November 2000.

   [RFC3177]    IAB and IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6
                Address Allocations to Sites", RFC3177,
                September 2001.

   [RFC4219]    R. Hinden & S. Deering, "IP Version 6
                Addressing Architecture", RFC4219,
                February 2006.

   [RFC4862]    S. Thomson, T. Narten & T. Jimnei, "IPv6 Stateless
                Address Autoconfiguration", RFC4862, Sep 2007



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 33]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   [RFC6177]    T. Narten, G. Huston, & L. Roberts, "IPv6 Address
                Assignment to End Sites", RFC6177, March 2011.

   [IEEE-EUI]   IEEE, "Guidelines for 64-bit Global Identifier
                (EUI-64) Registration Authority",
                http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html,
                IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, March 1997.

   [ILNP-ARCH]  R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ILNP Architecture",
                draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch, May 2012.

   [ILNP-ADV]   R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "Optional Advanced
                Deployment Scenarios for ILNP",
                draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv, May 2012.

   [ILNP-DNS]   R.J. Atkinson, S.N. Bhatti, & S. Rose, "DNS Resource
                Records for ILNP", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns,
                March 2012.

   [ILNP-ICMPv4] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ICMPv4 Locator Update
                message" draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4, May 2012.

   [ILNP-ICMPv6] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ICMPv6 Locator Update
                 message", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6, May 2012.

   [ILNP-NONCEv6] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "IPv6 Nonce
                 Destination Option for ILNPv6",
                 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6, May 2012.

   [ILNP-v4OPTS] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "IPv4 Options for ILNP",
                 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts, May 2012.

16.2 Informative References


   [BA11] S. Bhatti & R. Atkinson, "Reducing DNS Caching",
            Proc. GI2011 - 14th IEEE Global Internet Symposium.
            Shanghai, China. 15 April 2011.

   [BAK11] S.N. Bhatti, R. Atkinson, J. Klemets,
           "Integrating Challenged Networks", Proc. MILCOM2011 -
            30th IEEE Military Communications Conference,
            Baltimore, USA. 09-12 Nov 2011.

   [LA06] Cricket Liu and Paul Albitz, "DNS and Bind",
            5th Edition, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol,
            CA, USA. 2006.  ISBN 0-596-10057-4.




Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 34]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   [PHG02]  A. Pappas, S. Hailes, & R. Giaffreda,
            "Mobile Host Location Tracking through DNS",
            Proceedings of IEEE London Communications
            Symposium, IEEE, September 2002, London,
            England, UK.

   [SBK02]    Alex C. Snoeren, Hari Balakrishnan, & M. Frans
                Kaashoek, "Reconsidering Internet Mobility",
                Proceedings of 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in
                Operating Systems, 2002.

   [ID-Referral] B. Carpenter and others, "A Generic Referral
                 Object for Internet Entities",
                 draft-carpenter-behave-referral-object-01,
                 20 October 2009.

   [RFC3972]   T. Aura, "Cryptographically Generated Addresses
                (CGAs)", RFC3972, March 2005.

   [RFC4291]   R. Hinden & S. Deering, "IP version 6 Addressing
                Architecture", RFC4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4581]   M. Bagnulo & J. Arkko, "Cryptographically Generated
                Addresses Extension Field Format", RFC4581,
                October 2006.

   [RFC4941]   T. Narten, R. Draves, & S. Krishnan, "Privacy
                Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
                in IPv6", RFC4941, Sep 2007.

   [RFC4982]   M. Bagnulo & J. Arkko, "Support for Multiple Hash
                Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated
                Addresses", RFC4982, July 2007.

   [RFC5534]   J. Arkko & I. van Beijnum, "Failure Detection
                and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6
                Multihoming", RFC5534, June 2009.

   [RFC6164]   M. Kohno and others, "Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes
                on Inter-Router Links", RFC6164, April 2011.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

   Steve Blake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Mohamed Boucadair, Noel
   Chiappa, Wes George, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley,
   Volker Hilt, Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter,
   Bruce Simpson, Robin Whittle and John Wroclawski (in alphabetical
   order) provided review and feedback on earlier versions of this



Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 35]

Internet Draft     ILNP Eng           29 MAY 2012


   document. Steve Blake provided an especially thorough review of
   an early version of the entire ILNP document set, which was
   extremely helpful. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers
   of the various ILNP papers for their feedback.

   Roy Arends provided expert guidance on technical and procedural
   aspects of DNS issues.

RFC EDITOR NOTE

   This section is to be removed prior to publication.

   Please note that this document is written in British English, so
   British English spelling is used throughout. This is consistent
   with existing practice in several other RFCs, for example
   RFC-5887.

   This document tries to be very careful with history, in the
   interest of correctly crediting ideas to their earliest
   identifiable author(s). So in several places the first published
   RFC about a topic is cited rather than the most recent published
   RFC about that topic.

Author's Address

   RJ Atkinson
   Consultant
   San Jose, CA
   95125 USA

   Email:     rja.lists@gmail.com

   SN Bhatti
   School of Computer Science
   University of St Andrews
   North Haugh, St Andrews
   Fife, Scotland
   KY16 9SX, UK

   Email: saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk

   Expires: 29 NOV 2012









Atkinson & Bhatti  Expires in 6 months                         [Page 36]


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