draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07.txt		draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-08.txt
	Network Working Group J. Chroboczek		Network Working Group J. Chroboczek
	Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris		Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris
	Updates: 8966 (if approved) 16 January 2022		Intended status: Experimental 24 February 2022
	Intended status: Standards Track		Expires: 28 August 2022
	Expires: 20 July 2022
	IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop in the Babel routing protocol		IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop in the Babel routing protocol
	draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07		draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-08
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that		This document defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that
	allows annoncing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop,		allows announcing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop,
	which makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces		which makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces
	that have not been assigned an IPv4 address. This document updates		that have not been assigned an IPv4 address.
	RFC 8966.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 July 2022.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 August 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶
	described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.		provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Protocol operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Protocol operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Announcing v4-via-v6 routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. Announcing v4-via-v6 routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Receiving v4-via-v6 routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. Receiving v4-via-v6 routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.3. Prefix and seqno requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.3. Route and seqno requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.4. Other TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.4. Other TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. ICMPv4 and PMTU discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. ICMPv4 and PMTU discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Protocol encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Protocol encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.1. Prefix encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. Prefix encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.2. Changes to existing TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2. Changes to existing TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Backwards compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Backwards compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	skipping to change at page 3, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 16 ¶
	OSI protocol suite).		OSI protocol suite).
	The case of routing IPv4 packets through an IPv6 next hop is		The case of routing IPv4 packets through an IPv6 next hop is
	particularly interesting, since it makes it possible to build		particularly interesting, since it makes it possible to build
	networks that have no IPv4 addresses except at the edges and still		networks that have no IPv4 addresses except at the edges and still
	provide IPv4 connectivity to edge hosts. In addition, since an IPv6		provide IPv4 connectivity to edge hosts. In addition, since an IPv6
	next hop can use a link-local address that is autonomously		next hop can use a link-local address that is autonomously
	configured, the use of such routes enables a mode of operation where		configured, the use of such routes enables a mode of operation where
	the network core has no statically assigned IP addresses of either		the network core has no statically assigned IP addresses of either
	family, which significantly reduces the amount of manual		family, which significantly reduces the amount of manual
	configuration required.		configuration required. (See also [RFC7404] for a discussion of the
			issues involved with such an approach.)
	We call a route towards an IPv4 prefix that uses an IPv6 next hop a		We call a route towards an IPv4 prefix that uses an IPv6 next hop a
	"v4-via-v6" route. This document describes an extension that allows		"v4-via-v6" route. This document describes an extension that allows
	the Babel routing protocol [RFC8966] to announce v4-via-v6 routes		the Babel routing protocol [RFC8966] to announce v4-via-v6 routes
	across interfaces that have no IPv4 addresses assigned. Section 3		across interfaces that have no IPv4 addresses assigned but are
	describes procedures that ensure that all routers can originate		capable of forwarding IPv4 traffic. Section 3 describes procedures
	ICMPv4 packets, even if they have not been assigned any IPv4		that ensure that all routers can originate ICMPv4 packets, even if
	addresses.		they have not been assigned any IPv4 addresses.
	The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously		The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously
	defined extension to the BGP protocol [RFC5549]. This document		defined extension to the BGP protocol [RFC5549].
	updates [RFC8966].
	1.1. Specification of Requirements		1.1. Specification of Requirements
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	2. Protocol operation		2. Protocol operation
	The Babel protocol fully supports dual-stack operation: all data that		The Babel protocol fully supports dual-stack operation: all data that
	represent a neighbour address or a network prefix are tagged by an		represent a neighbour address or a network prefix are tagged by an
	Address Encoding (AE), a small integer that identifies the address		Address Encoding (AE), a small integer that identifies the address
	family (IPv4 or IPv6) of the address of prefix, and describes how it		family (IPv4 or IPv6) of the address of prefix, and describes how it
	is encoded. This extension defines a new AE, called v4-via-v6, which		is encoded. This extension defines a new AE, called v4-via-v6, which
	has the same format as the existing AE for IPv4 addresses. This new		has the same format as the existing AE for IPv4 addresses (AE 1).
	AE is only allowed in TLVs that carry network prefixes: TLVs that		This new AE is only allowed in TLVs that carry network prefixes: TLVs
	carry a neighbour address use one of the normal encodings for IPv6		that carry an IPv6 neighbour address use one of the normal encodings
	addresses.		for IPv6 addresses.
	2.1. Announcing v4-via-v6 routes		2.1. Announcing v4-via-v6 routes
	A Babel node can use a v4-via-v6 announcement to announce an IPv4		A Babel node can use a v4-via-v6 announcement to announce an IPv4
	route over an interface that has no assigned IPv4 address. In order		route over an interface that has no assigned IPv4 address. In order
	to do so, it first establishes an IPv6 next-hop address in the usual		to do so, it first establishes an IPv6 next-hop address in the usual
	manner (either by sending the Babel packet over IPv6, or by including		manner (either by sending the Babel packet over IPv6, or by including
	a Next Hop TLV containing an IPv6 address and using AE 2 or 3); it		a Next Hop TLV containing an IPv6 address and using AE 2 or 3); it
	then sends an Update, with AE equal to 4 (v4-via-v6) containing the		then sends an Update, with AE equal to 4 (v4-via-v6) containing the
	IPv4 prefix being announced.		IPv4 prefix being announced.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 37 ¶
	not require a next hop, and there is therefore no difference between		not require a next hop, and there is therefore no difference between
	v4-via-v6 retractions and ordinary retractions. A node MAY send IPv4		v4-via-v6 retractions and ordinary retractions. A node MAY send IPv4
	retractions only, or it MAY send v4-via-v6 retractions on interfaces		retractions only, or it MAY send v4-via-v6 retractions on interfaces
	that have not been assigned an IPv4 address.		that have not been assigned an IPv4 address.
	2.2. Receiving v4-via-v6 routes		2.2. Receiving v4-via-v6 routes
	Upon reception of an Update TLV with AE equal to 4 (v4-via-v6) and		Upon reception of an Update TLV with AE equal to 4 (v4-via-v6) and
	finite metric, a Babel node computes the IPv6 next hop, as described		finite metric, a Babel node computes the IPv6 next hop, as described
	in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966]. If no IPv6 next hop exists, then the		in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966]. If no IPv6 next hop exists, then the
	Update MUST be silently ignored. If an IPv6 next hop exists, then		Update MUST be ignored. If an IPv6 next hop exists, then the node
	the node MAY acquire the route being announced, as described in		MAY acquire the route being announced, as described in Section 3.5.3
	Section 3.5.3 of [RFC8966]; the parameters of the route are as		of [RFC8966]; the parameters of the route are as follows:
	follows:
	* the prefix, plen, router-id, seqno, metric MUST be computed as for		* the prefix, plen, router-id, seqno, metric MUST be computed as for
	an IPv4 route, as described in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966];		an IPv4 route, as described in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966];
	* the next hop MUST be computed as for an IPv6 route, as described		* the next hop MUST be computed as for an IPv6 route, as described
	in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966]: it is taken from the last preceding		in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966]: it is taken from the last preceding
	Next Hop TLV with an AE field equal to 2 or 3; if no such entry		Next Hop TLV with an AE field equal to 2 or 3; if no such entry
	exists, and if the Update TLV has been sent in a Babel packet		exists, and if the Update TLV has been sent in a Babel packet
	carried over IPv6, then the next hop is the network-layer source		carried over IPv6, then the next hop is the network-layer source
	address of the packet.		address of the packet.
	An Update TLV with a v4-via-v6 AE and metric equal to infinity is a		An Update TLV with a v4-via-v6 AE and metric equal to infinity is a
	retraction: it announces that a previously available route is being		retraction: it announces that a previously available route is being
	retracted. In that case, no next hop is necessary, and the		retracted. In that case, no next hop is necessary, and the
	retraction is treated as described in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966].		retraction is treated as described in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966].
	As usual, a node MAY ignore the update, e.g., due to filtering		As usual, a node MAY ignore the update, e.g., due to filtering
	(Appendix C of [RFC8966]). If a node cannot install v4-via-v6		(Appendix C of [RFC8966]). If a node cannot install v4-via-v6
	routes, e.g., due to hardware or software limitations, then routes to		routes, e.g., due to hardware or software limitations, then routes to
	an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next hop MUST NOT be selected, as		an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next hop MUST NOT be selected.
	described in Section 3.5.3 of [RFC8966].
	2.3. Prefix and seqno requests		2.3. Route and seqno requests
	Prefix and seqno requests are used to request an update for a given		Route and seqno requests are used to request an update for a given
	prefix. Since they are not related to a specific next hop, there is		prefix. Since they are not related to a specific next hop, there is
	no semantic difference between IPv4 and v4-via-v6 requests.		no semantic difference between IPv4 and v4-via-v6 requests.
	Therefore, a node SHOULD NOT send requests of either kind with the AE		Therefore, a node SHOULD NOT send requests of either kind with the AE
	field being set to 4 (v4-via-v6); instead, it SHOULD request IPv4		field being set to 4 (v4-via-v6); instead, it SHOULD request IPv4
	updates by sending requests with the AE field being set to 1 (IPv4).		updates by sending requests with the AE field being set to 1 (IPv4).
	When receiving requests, AEs 1 (IPv4) and 4 (v4-via-v6) MUST be		When receiving requests, AEs 1 (IPv4) and 4 (v4-via-v6) MUST be
	treated in the same manner: the receiver processes the request as		treated in the same manner: the receiver processes the request as
	described in Section 3.8 of [RFC8966]. If an Update is sent, then it		described in Section 3.8 of [RFC8966]. If an Update is sent, then it
	MAY be sent with AE 1 or 4, as described in Section 2.1 above,		MAY be an ordinary IPv4 announcement (AE = 1) or an v4-via-v6
			announcement (AE = 4), as described in Section 2.1 above,
	irrespective of which AE was used in the request.		irrespective of which AE was used in the request.
	When receiving a request with AE 0 (wildcard), the receiver SHOULD		When receiving a request with AE 0 (wildcard), the receiver SHOULD
	send a full route dump, as described in Section 3.8.1.1 of [RFC8966].		send a full route dump, as described in Section 3.8.1.1 of [RFC8966].
	Any IPv4 routes contained in the route dump MAY use either AE 1		Any IPv4 routes contained in the route dump may use either AE 1
	(IPv4) or AE 4 (v4-via-v6), as described in Section 2.1 above.		(IPv4) or AE 4 (v4-via-v6), as described Section 2.1 above.
	2.4. Other TLVs		2.4. Other TLVs
	The only other TLVs defined by [RFC8966] that carry an AE field are		The only other TLVs defined by [RFC8966] that carry an AE field are
	Next Hop and TLV. Next Hop and IHU TLVs MUST NOT carry the AE 4 (v4-		Next Hop and IHU. Next Hop and IHU TLVs MUST NOT carry the AE 4 (v4-
	via-v6).		via-v6).
	3. ICMPv4 and PMTU discovery		3. ICMPv4 and PMTU discovery
	The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv4, or simply ICMP)		The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv4, or simply ICMP)
	[RFC0792] is a protocol related to IPv4 that is primarily used to		[RFC0792] is a protocol related to IPv4 that is primarily used to
	carry diagnostic and debugging information. ICMPv4 packets may be		carry diagnostic and debugging information. ICMPv4 packets may be
	originated by end hosts (e.g., the "destination unreachable, port		originated by end hosts (e.g., the "destination unreachable, port
	unreachable" ICMPv4 packet), but they may also be originated by		unreachable" ICMPv4 packet), but they may also be originated by
	intermediate routers (e.g., most other kinds of "destination		intermediate routers (e.g., most other kinds of "destination
	skipping to change at page 6, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 24 ¶
	Due to this kind of dependency, every Babel router that is able to		Due to this kind of dependency, every Babel router that is able to
	forward IPv4 traffic MUST be able originate ICMPv4 traffic. Since		forward IPv4 traffic MUST be able originate ICMPv4 traffic. Since
	the extension described in this document enables routers to forward		the extension described in this document enables routers to forward
	IPv4 traffic received over an interface that has not been assigned an		IPv4 traffic received over an interface that has not been assigned an
	IPv4 address, a router implementing this extension MUST be able to		IPv4 address, a router implementing this extension MUST be able to
	originate ICMPv4 packets even when the outgoing interface has not		originate ICMPv4 packets even when the outgoing interface has not
	been assigned an IPv4 address.		been assigned an IPv4 address.
	In such a situation, if a Babel router has an interface that has been		In such a situation, if a Babel router has an interface that has been
	assigned an IPv4 address, or if an IPv4 address has been assigned to		assigned an IPv4 address (other than the loopback address), or if an
	the router itself (to the "loopback interface"), then that IPv4		IPv4 address has been assigned to the router itself (to the "loopback
	address may be used as the source of originated ICMPv4 packets. If		interface"), then that IPv4 address may be used as the source of
	no IPv4 address is available, a Babel router could use the		originated ICMPv4 packets. If no IPv4 address is available, a Babel
	experimental mechanism described in Section 22 of [RFC7600], which		router could use the experimental mechanism described in Requirement
	consists of using the dummy address 192.0.0.8 as the source address		R-22 of Section 4.8 [RFC7600], which consists of using the dummy
	of originated ICMPv4 packets. Note however that using the same		address 192.0.0.8 as the source address of originated ICMPv4 packets.
	address on multiple routers may hamper debugging and fault isolation,		Note however that using the same address on multiple routers may
	e.g., when using the "traceroute" utility.		hamper debugging and fault isolation, e.g., when using the
			"traceroute" utility.
	4. Protocol encoding		4. Protocol encoding
	This extension defines the v4-via-v6 AE, whose value is 4. This AE		This extension defines the v4-via-v6 AE, whose value is 4. This AE
	is solely used to tag network prefixes, and MUST NOT be used to tag		is solely used to tag network prefixes, and MUST NOT be used to tag
	neighbour addresses, e.g. in Next Hop or IHU TLVs.		neighbour addresses, e.g. in Next Hop or IHU TLVs.
	This extension defines no new TLVs or sub-TLVs.		This extension defines no new TLVs or sub-TLVs.
	4.1. Prefix encoding		4.1. Prefix encoding
	Network prefixes tagged with AE 4 (v4-via-v6) MUST be encoded and		Network prefixes tagged with AE 4 (v4-via-v6) MUST be encoded and
	decoded just like prefixes tagged with AE 1 (IPv4), as described in		decoded just like prefixes tagged with AE 1 (IPv4), as described in
	Section 4.3.1 of [RFC8966].		Section 4.3.1 of [RFC8966].
	A new compression state for AE 4 (v4-via-v6) distinct from that of AE		A new compression state for AE 4 (v4-via-v6) distinct from that of AE
	1 (IPv4) is introduced, and MUST be used for address compression of		1 (IPv4) is introduced, and MUST be used for address compression of
	prefixes tagged with AE 4, as described in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966]		prefixes tagged with AE 4, as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.9 of
			[RFC8966]
	4.2. Changes to existing TLVs		4.2. Changes to existing TLVs
	The following TLVs MAY be tagged with AE 4 (v4-via-v6):		The following TLVs MAY be tagged with AE 4 (v4-via-v6):
	* Update (Type = 8)		* Update (Type = 8)
	* Route Request (Type = 9)		* Route Request (Type = 9)
	* Seqno Request (Type = 10)		* Seqno Request (Type = 10)
	As AE 4 (v4-via-v6) is suitable only for network prefixes, IHU		As AE 4 (v4-via-v6) is suitable only for network prefixes, IHU
	(Type = 5) and Next-Hop (Type = 7) TLVs MUST NOT be tagged with AE 4.		(Type = 5) and Next-Hop (Type = 7) TLVs are never sent with AE 4.
	Such (incorrect) TLVs MUST be ignored upon reception.		Such (incorrect) TLVs MUST be ignored upon reception.
	4.2.1. Update		4.2.1. Update
	An Update (Type = 8) TLV with AE 4 is constructed as described in		An Update (Type = 8) TLV with AE 4 is constructed as described in
	Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966] for AE 1 (IPv4), with the following		Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966] for AE 1 (IPv4), with the following
	specificities:		specificities:
	* Prefix. The Prefix field is constructed according to Section 4.1		* Prefix. The Prefix field is constructed according to Section 4.1
	above.		above.
	* Next Hop. The next hop is determined as described in Section 2.2		* Next Hop. The next hop is built and prased as described in
	above.		Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 above.
	4.2.2. Other TLVs		4.2.2. Requests
	When tagged with the AE 4, Route Request and Seqno Request updates		When tagged with the AE 4, Route Request and Seqno Request updates
	MUST be constructed and decoded as described in Section 4.6 of		MUST be constructed and decoded as described in Section 4.6 of
	[RFC8966], and the network prefixes contained within them decoded as		[RFC8966], and the network prefixes contained within them decoded as
	described in Section 4.1 above.		described in Section 4.1 above (see also Section 2.3).
	5. Backwards compatibility		5. Backwards compatibility
	This protocol extension adds no new TLVs or sub-TLVs.		This protocol extension adds no new TLVs or sub-TLVs.
	This protocol extension uses a new AE. As discussed in Appendix D of		This protocol extension uses a new AE. As discussed in Appendix D of
	[RFC8966] and specified in the same document, implementations that do		[RFC8966] and specified in the same document, implementations that do
	not understand the present extension will silently ignore the various		not understand the present extension will silently ignore the various
	TLVs that use this new AE. As a result, incompatible versions will		TLVs that use this new AE. As a result, incompatible versions will
	ignore v4-via-v6 routes. They will also ignore requests with AE 4,		ignore v4-via-v6 routes. They will also ignore requests with AE 4,
	which, as stated in Section 2.3, are NOT RECOMMENDED.		which, as stated in Section 2.3, are not recommended.
	Using a new AE introduces a new compression state, used to parse the		Using a new AE introduces a new compression state, used to parse the
	network prefixes. As this compression state is separate from other		network prefixes. As this compression state is separate from other
	AEs' states, it will not interfere with the compression state of		AEs' states, it will not interfere with the compression state of
	unextended nodes.		unextended nodes.
	This extension reuses the next-hop state from AEs 2 and 3 (IPv6), but		This extension reuses the next-hop state from AEs 2 and 3 (IPv6), but
	makes no changes to the way in which it is updated, and therefore		makes no changes to the way in which it is updated, and therefore
	causes no compatibility issues.		causes no compatibility issues.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 15 ¶
	[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,		[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
	"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,		"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861>.
	[RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network		[RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network
	Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop",		Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop",
	RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009,		RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5549>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5549>.
			[RFC7404] Behringer, M. and E. Vyncke, "Using Only Link-Local
			Addressing inside an IPv6 Network", RFC 7404,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC7404, November 2014,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7404>.
	[RFC7600] Despres, R., Jiang, S., Ed., Penno, R., Lee, Y., Chen, G.,		[RFC7600] Despres, R., Jiang, S., Ed., Penno, R., Lee, Y., Chen, G.,
	and M. Chen, "IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - A		and M. Chen, "IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - A
	Stateless Solution (4rd)", RFC 7600, DOI 10.17487/RFC7600,		Stateless Solution (4rd)", RFC 7600, DOI 10.17487/RFC7600,
	July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7600>.		July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7600>.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Juliusz Chroboczek		Juliusz Chroboczek
	IRIF, University of Paris		IRIF, University of Paris
	Case 7014		Case 7014
End of changes. 25 change blocks.
	48 lines changed or deleted		52 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/