[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 T. Chown
Internet-Draft                                                      Jisc
Obsoletes: 6434 (if approved)                                J. Loughney
Intended status: Informational                                     Nokia
Expires: May 4, 2017                                          T. Winters
                                             University of New Hampshire
                                                        October 31, 2016


                         IPv6 Node Requirements
                        draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00

Abstract

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

   This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.

   NB.  This is a first -00 version of the update to RFC 6434.  We have
   not yet edited original text from RFC 6434 apart from the author and
   acknowledgement texts, which carry forward from the older versions.

   We have indicated intended changes (additions, updates or deletion of
   text at a high level in the sections below with text delimited by
   **BIS ... ** comments, e.g.

   **BIS Add discussion of the impact of RFC xxxx **

   **BIS Update reference of RFC 3484 and note new address selection
   implications**

   etc.  These will become edits in future versions once the substance
   of the changes is agreed.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.




Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Scope of This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Sub-IP Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IP Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460  . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861  . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific     Routes -
           RFC 4191  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.4.  SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . .  10
     5.5.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC       5175 .  10
     5.6.  Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.6.1.  Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.7.  IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.8.  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) -
           RFC 4443  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.9.  Addressing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.9.1.  IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . .  12
       5.9.2.  IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 .  12
       5.9.3.  Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6
               - RFC 4941  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.9.4.  Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484 . . . .  13



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


       5.9.5.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC
               3315  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . .  14
   6.  DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
       Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  DNS and DHCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.2.  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) -
           RFC 3315  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       7.2.1.  Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       7.2.2.  Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments   17
     7.3.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
           Configuration - RFC 6106  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       8.1.1.  Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
               Routers - RFC 4213  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.1.  Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC     5952 .  17
     9.2.  Happy Eyeballs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.3.  Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . .  18
   10. Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   11. Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.1.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     11.2.  Transforms and Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     12.1.  IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711  . . . . . . . . . .  21
     12.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . .  21
     12.3.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 .  21
   13. Network Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.1.  Management Information Base (MIB) Modules  . . . . . . .  22
       13.1.1.  IP Forwarding Table MIB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       13.1.2.  Management Information Base for the Internet
                Protocol (IP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   14. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   15. IPv6 Switch behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   17. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     17.1.  Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . .  23
     17.2.  Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434  . . . . . . .  23
     17.3.  Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294  . . . . . . .  23
   18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   19. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     19.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     19.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34





Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


1.  Introduction

   This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6
   hosts and routers.  Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or
   additional features, but this document collects and summarizes
   requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one
   place.

   This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details and
   references RFCs for this purpose.  This document is intended to be an
   applicability statement and to provide guidance as to which IPv6
   specifications should be implemented in the general case and which
   specifications may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios.
   This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs.

   Although this document points to different specifications, it should
   be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular
   requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many
   specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may
   not be mandatory.  In addition, most specifications define both
   client and server behavior in the same specification, while many
   implementations will be focused on only one of those roles.

   This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a
   device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range
   of device types and deployment scenarios.  Because of the wide range
   of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this
   document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios.  It is
   perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to
   define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific
   usage and deployment environments.  For example, this document does
   not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment
   scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement.  For
   example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for
   specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments (see [DODv6]
   and [USGv6]).

   **BIS Is the DODv6 references still appopriate? **

   As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact
   usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
   that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: "Be
   conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
   others" [RFC0793].







Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


1.1.  Scope of This Document

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

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

1.2.  Description of IPv6 Nodes

   From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460],
   we have the following definitions:

   IPv6 node   - a device that implements IPv6.

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

   IPv6 host   - any node that is not a router.

   **BIS We will need to refer to 2460-bis, as well as 1981-bis and
   4291-bis, throughout this document.  These are still in flux, but we
   will know the final versions of these documents before this -bis is
   published, so can adapt text here once those updates are complete.**

2.  Requirements Language

   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].

3.  Abbreviations Used in This Document

















Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   ATM   Asynchronous Transfer Mode

   AH    Authentication Header

   DAD   Duplicate Address Detection

   ESP   Encapsulating Security Payload

   ICMP  Internet Control Message Protocol

   IKE   Internet Key Exchange

   MIB   Management Information Base

   MLD   Multicast Listener Discovery

   MTU   Maximum Transmission Unit

   NA    Neighbor Advertisement

   NBMA  Non-Broadcast Multiple Access

   ND    Neighbor Discovery

   NS    Neighbor Solicitation

   NUD   Neighbor Unreachability Detection

   PPP   Point-to-Point Protocol

4.  Sub-IP Layer

   An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
   specifications.  Which link-layer specifications an implementation
   should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the
   hardware available on the system.  It is possible for a conformant
   IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on
   others.

   As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
   specifications will be issued.  In the following, we list some of the
   layer 2 technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been
   developed.  It is provided for informational purposes only and may
   not be complete.

   -  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]

   -  IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492]



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   -  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
      Specification [RFC2590]

   -  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146]

   -  Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
      Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338]

   -  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]

   -  Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE
      802.16 Networks [RFC5121]

   -  IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]

   **BIS Add 6LoWPAN RFC 4919 here.  Refresh the list. **

   In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible
   to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols.  Examples include:

   -  Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address
      Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]

   -  Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
      Routers" [RFC4213]

   **BIS Do we want a small "over IP" section on UDP IPv6 tunneling, and
   issues like RFC 6935, or 6936?**

5.  IP Layer

5.1.  Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460

   The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460].  This
   specification MUST be supported.

   **BIS Again, update for RFC 2460 -bis **

   Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
   described in RFC 2460.

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

   Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment
   headers.  All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
   sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
   be supported.  Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in
   [RFC5722].



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   **BIS Add note on atomic fragments, RFC 6946, which updates RFC 5722,
   and on draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation **

   **BIS Add note on predictable fragment IDs, RFC 7739 **

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

   An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers.  An exception is
   Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to
   security concerns and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized
   routing type.

   **BIS Add note on new uniform IPv6 extension header format, RFC 6564
   **

   **BIS Add note on forwarding of EHs, as per RFC 7045 **

   **BIS Add note on oversized header chains, RFC 7112 **

   **BIS Wait to see outcome of insertion of EHs from 2460-bis - or
   leave any mention out from here? **

   All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label
   field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437].
   Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
   depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow label by setting the
   Flow Label field for all packets of a given flow to the same value
   chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.

5.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861

   Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861]; the definition was
   updated by [RFC5942].  Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported.  RFC
   4861 states:

      Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP
      over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
      types.  However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
      its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., Non-
      Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or
      mechanisms to implement those services will be specified (in the
      appropriate document covering the operation of IP over a
      particular link type).  The services described in this document
      that are not directly dependent on multicast, such as Redirects,
      next-hop determination, Neighbor Unreachability Detection, etc.,
      are expected to be provided as specified in this document.  The



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


      details of how one uses ND on NBMA links are addressed in
      [RFC2491].

   Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:

   Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
   attached link.  Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality.

   Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
   that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
   Hosts MUST support Prefix Discovery.

   Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for
   all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes.  NUD is not required
   for paths between routers.  However, all nodes MUST respond to
   unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages.

   **BIS Add note on NUD impatience, RFC 7048 **

   Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the
   receiving of Router Advertisements.  The ability to understand
   individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting
   the functionality making use of the particular option.

   **BIS Add note on RFC 7559 on packet-loss resliency for Router
   Solicitations **

   All nodes MUST support the sending and receiving of Neighbor
   Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages.  NS and
   NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).

   Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality.
   Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily
   for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting).  Redirects
   are only useful on networks supporting hosts.  In core networks
   dominated by routers, Redirects are typically disabled.  The sending
   of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers.  They
   MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on
   edge networks.

   "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional
   recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
   [RFC4311] SHOULD be supported.








Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


5.3.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191

   "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
   provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
   each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
   via Router Advertisements.  In some scenarios, one router may provide
   connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
   the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures.  In
   such cases, RFC 4191 can help.

   Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers
   adhering to [RFC6204] use RFC 4191 to advertise routes to certain
   local destinations.  Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in
   SOHO environments SHOULD implement RFC 4191.

   ** BIS Need to update 6204 to 7084. **

5.4.  SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971

   SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA)
   [RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor
   Discovery.  SEND is a new technology in that it has no IPv4
   counterpart, but it has significant potential to address certain
   classes of spoofing attacks.  While there have been some
   implementations of SEND, there has been only limited deployment
   experience to date in using the technology.  In addition, the IETF
   working group Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) is currently working on
   additional extensions intended to make SEND more attractive for
   deployment.

   At this time, SEND is considered optional, and IPv6 nodes MAY provide
   SEND functionality.

   **BIS SEND seems to have minimal traction - should we reflect this?
   **

5.5.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175

   Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
   Advertisement flags.  The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends
   the number of available flag bits by 48 bits.  At the time of this
   writing, 6 of the original 8 single-bit flags have been assigned,
   while 2 remain available for future assignment.  No flags have been
   defined that make use of the new option, and thus, strictly speaking,
   there is no requirement to implement the option today.  However,
   implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a
   higher-level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a




Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   user-level process using a "raw socket" facility) MAY take steps to
   handle the option in anticipation of a future usage.

5.6.  Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size

5.6.1.  Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981

   "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported.
   From [RFC2460]:

      It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
      Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of
      path MTUs greater than 1280 octets.  However, a minimal IPv6
      implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
      sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit
      implementation of Path MTU Discovery.

   The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet
   fragmentation and reassembly.

   One operational issue with Path MTU Discovery occurs when firewalls
   block ICMP Packet Too Big messages.  Path MTU Discovery relies on
   such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully
   sent.  "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids
   having a dependency on Packet Too Big messages.

   **BIS Add note about 1280 MTU and UDP, as per Mark Andrews' comments
   in Berlin? **

   **BIS Add note about RFC 4821, PLMTUD - is it appropriate here? **

5.7.  IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675

   IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an optional extension that allow the
   sending of IP datagrams larger than 65.535 bytes.  IPv6 Jumbograms
   make use of IPv6 hop-by-hop options and are only suitable on paths in
   which every hop and link are capable of supporting Jumbograms (e.g.,
   within a campus or datacenter).  To date, few implementations exist,
   and there is essentially no reported experience from usage.
   Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time.

   **BIS Are these used?  Do we need to modify the text for that? **

5.8.  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443

   ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported.  "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
   Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported.




Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


5.9.  Addressing

5.9.1.  IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291

   The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.

   **BIS Update to 4291-bis **

   **BIS Add note on Why /64?  RFC 7421.  But no need for /127 p2p text
   RFC 6164.  And no need for note on IID significance, as per RFC 7136.
   **

   **BIS Add note discussing the impact of having multiple Addeses**

5.9.2.  IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862

   Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as
   defined in [RFC4862].  Configuration of static address(es) may be
   supported as well.

   **BIS Is this a must any more?  Add note on RFC 7721 on privacy
   issues for address generation mechanisms.  Add note on stable privacy
   addresses, as per RFC 7217. **

   Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses
   as described in [RFC4862].

   From RFC 4862:

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

   All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection.  Quoting from
   Section 5.4 of RFC 4862:

      Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast
      addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of
      whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration,
      DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions
      noted therein].




Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429]
   specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating
   addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].  RFC
   4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce
   the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly
   move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize
   transition delays.  For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains
   optional at this time.

   **BIS Add note on enhanced DAD, RFC 7527 **

5.9.3.  Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941

   Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
   addresses a specific problem involving a client device whose user is
   concerned about its activity or location being tracked.  The problem
   arises both for a static client and for one that regularly changes
   its point of attachment to the Internet.  When using Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862], the Interface Identifier portion
   of formed addresses stays constant and is globally unique.  Thus,
   although a node's global IPv6 address will change if it changes its
   point of attachment, the Interface Identifier portion of those
   addresses remains the same, making it possible for servers to track
   the location of an individual device as it moves around or its
   pattern of activity if it remains in one place.  This may raise
   privacy concerns as described in [RFC4862].

   In such situations, RFC 4941 SHOULD be implemented.  In other cases,
   such as with dedicated servers in a data center, RFC 4941 provides
   limited or no benefit.

   Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are
   reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses.
   Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more
   details.

   **BIS Add note about ensuring there's a configurable way to turn
   Privacy Addresses on / off? **

5.9.4.  Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484

   The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
   [RFC3484] document MUST be implemented.  IPv6 nodes will need to deal
   with multiple addresses configured simultaneously.

   **BIS Update to RFC 6724.  Briefly mention key changes? **





Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


5.9.5.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

   DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses.  In
   general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses
   through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6, or both.  There will be a wide
   range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment
   requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for address
   assignment.  Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address
   configuration via DHCPv6.

   In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address
   assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other
   configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of
   [RFC4862].

5.10.  Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6

   Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1
   [RFC2710].  MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive
   and process multicast traffic.  Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used
   on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and
   requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses.

   MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting
   Source-Specific Multicast.  The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810]
   supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of
   "filter modes".  Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a
   multicast group along with a list of senders for the group from which
   it wishes to receive traffic.  Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node
   indicates a multicast group along with a list of senders from which
   it wishes to exclude receiving traffic.  In practice, operations to
   block source(s) using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used but add
   considerable implementation complexity to MLDv2.  Lightweight MLDv2
   [RFC5790] is a simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification
   that omits EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s).

   Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2
   [RFC5790].  Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source-
   Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE
   functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810],
   [RFC4604], and [RFC4607].  Nodes supporting applications that expect
   to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as
   Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support MLDv2 as
   defined in [RFC5790].

   If a node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast
   (i.e, they do not use Source-Specific Multicast), implementing MLDv1
   [RFC2710] is sufficient.  In all cases, however, nodes are strongly



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1,
   as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that
   all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode.

   When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the
   Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be
   followed.

6.  DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration

   In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating
   configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements (RAs) and
   DHCP.  Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed
   essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are
   configured with exactly the same information.  Examples include the
   Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc.  On the other hand,
   DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general
   parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific.  That
   said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option
   should be configured via DHCP versus an RA option has not always been
   easy.  Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define
   only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than
   defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same
   information.

   One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same
   information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one
   mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism.
   For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant
   influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what
   configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to
   ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected
   hosts.  In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices
   may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise.  To maximize
   interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement
   multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability.

   Originally, in IPv6, configuring information about DNS servers was
   performed exclusively via DHCP.  In 2007, an RA option was defined
   but was published as Experimental [RFC5006].  In 2010, "IPv6 Router
   Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration" [RFC6106] was published
   as a Standards Track document.  Consequently, DNS configuration
   information can now be learned either through DHCP or through RAs.
   Hosts will need to decide which mechanism (or whether both) should be
   implemented.  Specific guidance regarding DNS server discovery is
   discussed in Section 7.





Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


7.  DNS and DHCP

7.1.  DNS

   DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596].
   Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need
   to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality.
   However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure
   capability on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to
   provide support.  All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034]
   functionality, as in [RFC1034], Section 5.3.1, with support for:

   -  AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];

   -  reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596];

   -  Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) [RFC2671] to allow for DNS
      packet sizes larger than 512 octets.

   Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
   [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035].

   Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6
   Resource Records [RFC3363].

   **BIS Scrub A6 completely now? **

   **BIS Add DNS-SD? **

7.2.  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

7.2.1.  Other Configuration Information

   IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration
   information (see Section 5.9.5) and to obtain additional (non-
   address) configuration.  If a host implementation supports
   applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
   only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP.  For
   specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present,
   DHCP may not be necessary.

   An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to
   obtain other configuration information.








Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


7.2.2.  Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments

   Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
   are expected to determine their default router information and on-
   link prefix information from received Router Advertisements.

   **BIS Well, they have no choice, bar manual configuration?  No
   default router DHCPv6 option. **

7.3.  IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106

   Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that
   are critical to basic IPv6 functioning.  Originally, DNS
   configuration was not included as an RA option, and DHCP was the
   recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information.  Over time,
   the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved.  It is now
   generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without
   having access to a working DNS resolver.  [RFC5006] was published as
   an Experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was
   placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106].

   Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106].

   **BIS repeats text from section 6 - remove the section 6 duplication?
   **

8.  IPv4 Support and Transition

   IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.

8.1.  Transition Mechanisms

8.1.1.  Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC
        4213

   If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213]
   MUST be supported.

9.  Application Support

9.1.  Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952

   Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in
   text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
   Representation" [RFC5952].






Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


9.2.  Happy Eyeballs

   **BIS Add Happy Eyeballs RFC6555 **

9.3.  Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)

   There are a number of IPv6-related APIs.  This document does not
   mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly
   relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols.  Implementers, however,
   would be advised to consider providing a common API or reviewing
   existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to
   applications.

   "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6
   functionality used by typical applications.  Implementers should note
   that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by the
   Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) [POSIX].

   "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6"
   [RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by
   diagnostic and other more specialized applications.

   "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides
   facilities that allow an application to override the default Source
   Address Selection rules of [RFC3484].

   "Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678]
   provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group
   memberships.

   "Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides
   application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275]
   features.

10.  Mobility

   Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and associated specifications [RFC3776]
   [RFC4877] allow a node to change its point of attachment within the
   Internet, while maintaining (and using) a permanent address.  All
   communication using the permanent address continues to proceed as
   expected even as the node moves around.  The definition of Mobile IP
   includes requirements for the following types of nodes:

      - mobile nodes

      - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization

      - home agents



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


      - all IPv6 routers

   At the present time, Mobile IP has seen only limited implementation
   and no significant deployment, partly because it originally assumed
   an IPv6-only environment rather than a mixed IPv4/IPv6 Internet.
   Recently, additional work has been done to support mobility in mixed-
   mode IPv4 and IPv6 networks [RFC5555].

   More usage and deployment experience is needed with mobility before
   any specific approach can be recommended for broad implementation in
   all hosts and routers.  Consequently, [RFC6275], [RFC5555], and
   associated standards such as [RFC4877] are considered a MAY at this
   time.

   **BIS Mobile IPv6 for hosts seems in scant usage; no OSes support it?
   Do we say it's effectively dead, and point at mobile network work
   instead? **

   **BIS need to add 3G /64 RFC 7278**

11.  Security

   This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes.

   Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking.  Operational
   procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate
   management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level
   of security actually achieved in practice.  More importantly,
   deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can
   significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular
   security approach.

   IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it
   possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of)
   communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes.
   IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual
   TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc.

   Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such
   usage has limited applicability and is not recommended.

   A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today
   (e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH),
   etc.)  No one approach has emerged as an ideal technology for all
   needs and environments.  Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the ideal
   security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace the
   others.




Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the
   key management approach of IKE.  This document updates that
   recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture [RFC4301]
   a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes.  Note that the IPsec Architecture
   requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both
   manual and automatic key management.  Currently, the default
   automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996].

   This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types
   and environments where approaches to security other than IPsec can be
   justified.  For example, special-purpose devices may support only a
   very limited number or type of applications, and an application-
   specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management
   or configuration capabilities.  Alternatively, some devices may run
   on extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full
   IPsec Architecture is not justified.

   **BIS Add note on security in IPv4-only networks?  RFC 7123?
   Relevant? **

11.1.  Requirements

   "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be
   supported by all IPv6 nodes.  Note that the IPsec Architecture
   requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) the implementation of both
   manual and automatic key management.  Currently, the default
   automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2.  As required
   in [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST
   implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302].

11.2.  Transforms and Algorithms

   The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec
   Architecture are defined in "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
   Requirements For ESP and AH" [RFC4835].  IPv6 nodes implementing the
   IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4835].
   Preferred cryptographic algorithms often change more frequently than
   security protocols.  Therefore, implementations MUST allow for
   migration to new algorithms, as RFC 4835 is replaced or updated in
   the future.

   **BIS update to 7321 or 7321bis**

   The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are
   defined in "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key
   Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC4307].  IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2
   MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future
   updates or replacements to [RFC4307].



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   **BIS update to 4307bis**

12.  Router-Specific Functionality

   This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
   act as routers.  Currently, this section does not discuss routing-
   specific requirements.

   **BIS Sync here with work by John Brzozowski et al. in draft-ali-
   ipv6rtr-reqs-00**

   **BIS Add a reference to IPv6 CPEs as per RFC 7084? **

12.1.  IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711

   The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
   Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP
   [RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710]).  The
   Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols
   that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are implemented.  See
   Section 5.10.

12.2.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861

   Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations
   MUST be supported.

   Section 7 of [RFC6275] includes some mobility-specific extensions to
   Neighbor Discovery.  Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5,
   even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality.

12.3.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315

   A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide
   configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared
   link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site.
   Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different
   links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers.

   In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a
   single LAN or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together
   with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is
   one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC6204]).  However, there is
   no need for relay agents in such scenarios.

   In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or
   service provider networks, the use of DHCP requires some level of
   configuration, in order to configure relay agents, DHCP servers, etc.



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   In such environments, the DHCP server might even be run on a
   traditional server, rather than as part of a router.

   Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP
   server functionality on routers is optional.  However, routers
   targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described
   above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality.  Note that "Basic
   Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC6204] requires
   implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
   routers.

13.  Network Management

   Network management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes.  However, for IPv6
   nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
   possible way of controlling these nodes.

   **BIS This is a little thin.  Add Netconf, restconf, yang models? **

   **BIS add the network polling/syslod nd for none DHCPv6 network
   tracking.**

13.1.  Management Information Base (MIB) Modules

   The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that
   support a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent.

13.1.1.  IP Forwarding Table MIB

   The IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes
   that support an SNMP agent.

13.1.2.  Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)

   The IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
   SNMP agent.

14.  Constrained Devices

   **BIS Should we add notes on constrained devices, and power
   efficiency here in a new section?  Talk about resource management in
   nodes.  Low power operation.

15.  IPv6 Switch behavior

   **BIS Add RA Guard and Snooping for features that IPv6 Switch might
   implement?




Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


16.  Security Considerations

   This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet,
   beyond the security considerations associated with the individual
   protocols.

   Security is also discussed in Section 11 above.

17.  Authors and Acknowledgments

17.1.  Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)

   For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors
   would like to thank **BIS Add new acknowledgements for significant
   comments ** for their contributions.

17.2.  Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434

   Ed Jankiewicz and Thomas Narten were named authors of the previous
   iteration of this document, RFC6434.

   For this version of the document, the authors thanked Hitoshi Asaeda,
   Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman,
   Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave
   Thaler.

17.3.  Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294

   The original version of this document (RFC 4294) was written by the
   IPv6 Node Requirements design team:





















Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


      Jari Arkko
      jari.arkko@ericsson.com

      Marc Blanchet
      marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca

      Samita Chakrabarti
      samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com

      Alain Durand
      alain.durand@sun.com

      Gerard Gastaud
      gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr

      Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
      itojun@iijlab.net

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

      Masahiro Ishiyama
      masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

      John Loughney
      john.loughney@nokia.com

      Rajiv Raghunarayan
      raraghun@cisco.com

      Shoichi Sakane
      shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com

      Dave Thaler
      dthaler@windows.microsoft.com

      Juha Wiljakka
      juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com

   The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
   Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
   Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments.  Thanks to
   Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text.  Thanks to
   Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.







Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


18.  Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294

   There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
   additions and updates.  While this section highlights some of the
   changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
   list of all changes.

   1.   Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an
        applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.

   2.   Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding
        references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAYs.

   3.   Changed Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and
        added some more RFCs.

   4.   Added section on SEND (it is a MAY).

   5.   Revised section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more
        nuance to recommendation.

   6.   Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading overall
        recommendation to a SHOULD.

   7.   Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD.

   8.   Added background section on DHCP versus RA options, added SHOULD
        recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs [RFC6106], and
        cleaned up DHCP recommendations.

   9.   Added recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5
        of [RFC6275].

   10.  Added pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942].

   11.  Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
        SHOULD be implemented.

   12.  Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
        it a MUST to implement.

   13.  Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
        [RFC5952] a SHOULD.

   14.  Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about [RFC3363].

   15.  Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
        including [RFC4443], [RFC4291], [RFC3596], and [RFC4213].



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   16.  Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs.  There
        is no consensus at present on how to process these flags, and
        discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
        update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].

   17.  Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.

   18.  Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
        [RFC5952] a SHOULD.

   19.  Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
        it a MUST to implement.

   20.  Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
        [RFC5790].

   21.  Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and
        More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].

   22.  Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.

19.  References

19.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
              1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.






Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   [RFC2671]  Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
              RFC 2671, DOI 10.17487/RFC2671, August 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2671>.

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.

   [RFC2711]  Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
              RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.

   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3484, February 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3484>.

   [RFC3590]  Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3590, September 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3590>.

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
              "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.

   [RFC3736]  Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736,
              April 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3736>.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
              Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.





Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.

   [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
              for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC4292]  Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4292, April 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4292>.

   [RFC4293]  Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the
              Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, DOI 10.17487/RFC4293,
              April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4293>.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.

   [RFC4307]  Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
              Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4307, December 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4307>.

   [RFC4311]  Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
              Sharing", RFC 4311, DOI 10.17487/RFC4311, November 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4311>.








Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC4604]  Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
              Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
              Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
              Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
              August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.

   [RFC4607]  Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
              IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC4835]  Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
              Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
              Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4835, April 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4835>.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.

   [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.

   [RFC5453]  Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
              RFC 5453, DOI 10.17487/RFC5453, February 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5453>.






Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   [RFC5722]  Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
              RFC 5722, DOI 10.17487/RFC5722, December 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5722>.

   [RFC5790]  Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
              Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
              Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>.

   [RFC5942]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
              Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
              Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>.

   [RFC5952]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
              Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.

   [RFC5996]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
              "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
              RFC 5996, DOI 10.17487/RFC5996, September 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5996>.

   [RFC6106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 6106, DOI 10.17487/RFC6106, November 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6106>.

   [RFC6204]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
              Troan, Ed., "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
              Routers", RFC 6204, DOI 10.17487/RFC6204, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6204>.

   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.

19.2.  Informative References

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.






Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
              September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.

   [RFC2464]  Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
              Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.

   [RFC2491]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
              over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
              RFC 2491, DOI 10.17487/RFC2491, January 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>.

   [RFC2492]  Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
              Networks", RFC 2492, DOI 10.17487/RFC2492, January 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2492>.

   [RFC2590]  Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
              IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
              RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC2590, May 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.

   [RFC2675]  Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
              RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.

   [RFC3146]  Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
              over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC3146,
              October 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>.

   [RFC3363]  Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
              Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
              Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3363, August 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3363>.

   [RFC3493]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
              Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
              RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.

   [RFC3542]  Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
              "Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
              IPv6", RFC 3542, DOI 10.17487/RFC3542, May 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3542>.





Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   [RFC3678]  Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
              Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3678, January 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3678>.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

   [RFC3776]  Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
              Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and
              Home Agents", RFC 3776, DOI 10.17487/RFC3776, June 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3776>.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
              "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.

   [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
              RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
              November 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.

   [RFC4338]  DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of
              IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets
              over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, DOI 10.17487/RFC4338,
              January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.

   [RFC4429]  Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
              for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.

   [RFC4584]  Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API
              for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, DOI 10.17487/RFC4584, July
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4584>.



Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

   [RFC4877]  Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
              IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4877, April 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4877>.

   [RFC4884]  Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
              "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.

   [RFC5006]  Jeong, J., Ed., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 5006, DOI 10.17487/RFC5006, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5006>.

   [RFC5014]  Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
              Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.

   [RFC5072]  Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
              over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.

   [RFC5121]  Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
              Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
              Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>.

   [RFC5555]  Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
              Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June
              2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.

   [POSIX]    IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information
              Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX),
              ISO/IEC 9945:2009", <http://www.ieee.org>.





Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Node Requirements             October 2016


   [USGv6]    National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile
              for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008,
              <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/usgv6-v1.pdf>.

   [DODv6]    DISR IPv6 Standards Technical Working Group, "DoD IPv6
              Standard Profiles For IPv6 Capable Products Version 5.0",
              July 2010,
              <http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6/pdf/disr_ipv6_50.pdf>.

Authors' Addresses

   Tim Chown
   Jisc
   Lumen House, Library Avenue
   Harwell Oxford, Didcot  OX11 0SG
   United Kingdom

   Email: tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk


   John Loughney
   Nokia
   200 South Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94086
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 283 8068
   Email: john.loughney@nokia.com


   Tim Winters
   University of New Hampshire
   InterOperability Laboratory
   Durham  NH
   United States

   Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu














Chown, et al.              Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 34]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/