draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-02.txt 
Network Working Group John Loughney (ed) IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
July 1, 2002 October 31, 2002
Expires: December 29, 2002 Expires: April 31, 2003
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2003. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 31, 2003
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments. deployments.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of this Document 1.1 Scope of this Document
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups 1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
3. Sub-IP Layer 3. Sub-IP Layer
3.1 IPv6 over Foo 3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
3.2 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP
3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks
4. IP Layer 4. IP Layer
4.1 General 4.1 General
4.2 Neighbor Discovery 4.2 Neighbor Discovery
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size 4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.4 ICMPv6 4.4 RFC2463 - ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
4.5 Addressing 4.5 Addressing
4.6 Other 4.6 Other
5. Transport and DNS 5. Transport and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer 5.1 Transport Layer
5.2 DNS 5.2 DNS
5.3 Other 5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
6. Transition 6. IPv4 Support and Transition
6.1 Transition Mechanisms 6.1 Transition Mechanisms
7. Mobility 7. Mobility
8. Security 8. Security
8.1 Basic Architecture 8.1 Basic Architecture
8.2 Security Protocols 8.2 Security Protocols
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms 8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
8.4 Key Management Method 8.4 Key Management Method
9. Router Functionality 9. Router Functionality
9.1 General 9.1 General
10. Network Management 10. Network Management
skipping to change at page 3, line 18 skipping to change at page 3, line 18
required for an IPv6 node. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional required for an IPv6 node. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional
or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to
implement the requirements listed in this document. implement the requirements listed in this document.
The document is written to minimize protocol discussion in this The document is written to minimize protocol discussion in this
document but instead make pointers to RFCs. In case of any document but instead make pointers to RFCs. In case of any
conflicting text, this document takes less precedence than the conflicting text, this document takes less precedence than the
normative RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this normative RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this
document. document.
During the process of writing this document, if any issue is raised During the process of writing this document, any issue raised
regarding the normative RFCs, the consensus is, whenever possible, to regarding the normative RFCs, the consensus is, whenever possible, to
fix the RFCs not to add text in this document. However, it may be fix the RFCs and not to add text in this document. However, it may be
useful to include this information in an appendix for informative useful to include this information in an appendix for informative
purposes. purposes.
Although the document points to different specifications, it should Although the document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory. multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.
As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact 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 usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
1.1 Scope of this Document 1.1 Scope of this Document
IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be
deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore, deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore,
it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes, in order it is important to develop the requirements for IPv6 nodes, in order
to ensure interoperability. to ensure interoperability.
This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
requirements specified here. requirements specified here.
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups 1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes
This document defines three classes of conformance for an IPv6 node:
Unconditionally Mandatory, Conditionally Mandatory and
Unconditionally Optional. The three classes of conformance are
defined in section 1.2.
From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we
have the following definitions: have the following definitions:
Description of an IPv6 Node Description of an IPv6 Node
- a device that implements IPv6 - a device that implements IPv6
Description of an IPv6 router Description of an IPv6 router
- a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to
itself. itself.
Description of an IPv6 Host Description of an IPv6 Host
- any node that is not a router. - any node that is not a router.
skipping to change at page 4, line 21 skipping to change at page 4, line 15
Description of an IPv6 router Description of an IPv6 router
- a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to
itself. itself.
Description of an IPv6 Host Description of an IPv6 Host
- any node that is not a router. - any node that is not a router.
Usage of IPv6 nodes
TBD
Conformance Group
A conformance group is a collection of related behavioral
specifications that appear in standards. A single RFC may contain
multiple independent pieces of functionality that belong to
separate conformance groups. If a node claims compliance to a
given conformance group, that means it implements all of the
mandatory behavior therein, including implementing all MUSTs, and
none of the MUST NOTs.
Unconditionally Mandatory
If a node claims compliance to this document, then it must support
the behavior specified within each conformance group listed of
type unconditionally mandatory.
Conditionally Mandatory
Conditionally mandatory groups include those which are mandatory
only if a particular condition is true, such as whether a specific
type of hardware is present, or whether another given group is
implemented. When a conditionally mandatory specification or
group is described, the condition will also be described. A given
RFC or portion thereof can sometimes appear in multiple
conformance groups, with different conditions.
Unconditionally Optional
Behavior that is neither unconditionally mandatory nor
conditionally mandatory is unconditionally optional for compliance
to this document.
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
AH Authentication Header AH Authentication Header
DAD Duplicate Address Detection DAD Duplicate Address Detection
ESP Encapsulating Security Payload ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
MIB Management Information Base MIB Management Information Base
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit MTU Maximum Transfer Unit
NA Neighbor Advertisement NA Neighbor Advertisement
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
ND Neighbor Discovery ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
3. Sub-IP Layer PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
sending packet. By definition, these specifications are
conditionally mandatory, based upon what layer-2 is used. In
general, it is reasonable to be a conformant IPv6 node and NOT
support some legacy interfaces.
3.1 A.K.A - IPv6 over Foo
3.1.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] is
conditionally mandatory if the node supports Ethernet interfaces.
3.1.2 RFC2467 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI ULP Upper Layer Protocol
Networks
A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks 3. Sub-IP Layer
[RFC-2467] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports FDDI
interfaces.
3.1.3 RFC2470 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
Ring Networks sending packet. By definition, these specifications are required
based upon what layer-2 is used. In general, it is reasonable to be
a conformant IPv6 node and NOT support some legacy interfaces.
A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
Networks [RFC-2470] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major
token ring interfaces. layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.
3.1.4 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP 3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
IPv6 over PPP [RFC-2472] is conditionally mandatory if the node Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] MUST
supports PPP. be supported for nodes supporting Ethernet interfaces.
3.1.5 RFC2491 - IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks 3.2 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP
IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks [RFC2491] is IPv6 over PPP [RFC-2472] is MUST be supported for nodes that use PPP.
conditionally mandatory if the node supports NBMA network interfaces.
3.1.6 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks 3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks
IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] is conditionally mandatory if the IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] is MUSt be supported for nodes
node supports ATM interfaces. Additionally, the specification supporting ATM interfaces. Additionally, the specification states:
states:
A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
SHALL also support PVC mode of operation. SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.
3.1.7 RFC2497 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
ARCnet Networks
A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks
[RFC2497] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports ARCnet
network interfaces.
3.1.8 RFC2529 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 Domains without
Explicit Tunnels
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IPv4 Domains without Explicit
Tunnels [2529] is unconditionally optional.
3.1.9 RFC2590 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification
[RFC2590] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports Frame Relay
interfaces.
4. IP Layer 4. IP Layer
4.1 General 4.1 General
4.1.1 RFC2460 - Internet Protocol Version 6 4.1.1 RFC2460 - Internet Protocol Version 6
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This
specification is unconditionally mandatory. specification MUST be supported.
Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
extensions must be processed as described in RFC 2460. extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460.
The node must follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.
Nodes must always be able to receive fragment headers. However, if it Nodes MUST always be able to receive fragment headers. However, if it
does not implement path MTU discovery it may not need to send does not implement path MTU discovery it may not need to send
fragment headers. However, nodes that do not implement transmission fragment headers. However, nodes that do not implement transmission
of fragment headers need to impose limitation to payload size of of fragment headers need to impose limitation to payload size of
layer 4 protocols. layer 4 protocols.
The capability of being a final destination is unconditionally The capability of being a final destination MUST be supported,
mandatory, whereas the capability of being an intermediate whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination is MAY be
destination is unconditionally optional (i.e. - host functionality supported(i.e. - host functionality vs. router functionality).
vs. router functionality).
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers. headers.
A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0), following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
Security Payload. [RFC2460] Security Payload. [RFC2460]
It is unconditionally mandatory for an IPv6 node to process these An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be
headers. It should be noted that there is some discussion about the noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers
use of Routing Headers and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused by them.
by them.
4.2 Neighbor Discovery 4.2 Neighbor Discovery
4.2.1 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 4.2.1 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
Neighbor Discovery is conditionally mandatory. RFC 2461 states: Neighbor Discovery is SHOULD be supported. RFC 2461 states:
"Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating "Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating
IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA
links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those
services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering
the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services
described in this document that are not directly dependent on described in this document that are not directly dependent on
multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor
Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as Unreachability Detection, etc., are expected to be provided as
specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on specified in this document. The details of how one uses ND on
NBMA links is an area for further study." NBMA links is an area for further study."
Some detailed analysis of Neighbor discovery follows: Some detailed analysis of Neighbor discovery follows:
Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
attached link. Router Discovery is unconditionally mandatory for attached link. Router Discovery is MUST be supported for
implementations. However, the implementation MAY support disabling implementations. However, an implementation MAY support disabling
this feature. this function.
Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link. that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
Prefix discovery is unconditionally mandatory for implementation with Prefix discovery is MUST be supported for implementations. However,
option to disable this function. the implementation MAY support the option of disabling this function.
Address resolution is how nodes determine the link-layer address of
an on-link destination (e.g., a neighbor) given only the
destination's IP address. It is conditionally mandatory
implementation depending on the link type support. Address Resolution
for point-to-point links may not be mandatory; working group
clarification is needed on this.
Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) is conditionally mandatory. Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all
It is unconditionally mandatory for all paths between hosts and paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for
neighboring nodes. It is unconditionally optional for paths between paths between routers. It is required for multicast. However, when a
routers. It is unconditionally optional for multicast. However, when node receives a unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (that may
a node receives a unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (that be a NUD's NS), the node MUST respond to it (i.e. send a unicast
may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST respond to it (i.e. send a unicast
Neighbor Advertisement). Neighbor Advertisement).
Duplicate Address Detection is unconditionally mandatory (RFC2462 Duplicate Address Detection is MUST be supported (RFC2462 section 5.4
section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses). specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses).
Sending Router Solicitation is unconditionally mandatory for host Sending Router Solicitation MUST be supported for host
implementation, with a configuration option to disable this implementation, but MAY support a configuration option to disable
functionality. this functionality.
Receiving and processing Router Advertisements is unconditionally Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
mandatory for host implementation, with a configuration option to host implementation s. However, the implementation MAY support the
disable this functionality. The ability to understand specific Router option of disabling this function. The ability to understand specific
Advertisements is dependent on supporting the specification where the Router Advertisements is dependent on supporting the specification
RA is specified. where the RA is specified.
Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) are unconditionally mandatory. NS and NA messages Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required
are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Redirect Function is conditionally mandatory. If the node is a Redirect Function SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
router, Redirect Function is unconditionally mandatory. Redirect Function MUST be supported.
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size 4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.3.1 RFC1981 - Path MTU Discovery 4.3.1 RFC1981 - Path MTU Discovery
Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] is unconditionally optional. The IPv6 Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. Nodes with a link
specification [RFC-2460] states in section 5 that "a minimal IPv6 MTU larger than the minimum IPv6 link MTU (1280 octets) can use Path
implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to MTU Discovery in order to discover the real path MTU. The relative
sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit implementation overhead of IPv6 headers is minimized through the use of longer
of Path MTU Discovery." packets, thus making better use of the available bandwidth.
The IPv6 specification [RFC-2460] states in chapter 5 that "a minimal
IPv6 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself
to sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit
implementation of Path MTU Discovery."
If Path MTU Discovery is not implemented then the sending packet size If Path MTU Discovery is not implemented then the sending packet size
is limited to 1280 octets (standard limit in [RFC-2460]). is limited to 1280 octets (standard limit in [RFC-2460]). However, if
this is done, the host MUST be able to receive packets with size up
to the link MTU before reassembly. This is because the node at the
other side of the link has no way of knowing less than the MTU is
accepted.
4.3.2 RFC2675 - IPv6 Jumbograms 4.3.2 RFC2675 - IPv6 Jumbograms
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] is unconditionally optional. IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
4.4 ICMPv6
4.1.1 RFC2463 - ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) 4.4 RFC2463 - ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] is unconditionally mandatory. ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported.
4.5 Addressing 4.5 Addressing
Currently, there is discussion on-going on support for site-local Currently, there is discussion on-going on support for site-local
addressing. addressing.
4.5.1 RFC2373 - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture 4.5.1 RFC2373 - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-2373] is a mandatory part of The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-2373] MUST be supported.
IPv6. Currently, this specification is being updated by [ADDRARCHv3]. Currently, this specification is being updated by [ADDRARCHv3].
4.5.2 RFC2462 - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration 4.5.2 RFC2462 - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462]. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
This specification is unconditionally mandatory for nodes that are This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.
hosts.
It is unconditionally mandatory for nodes that are routers to Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses
generate link local addresses as described in this specification. as described in this specification.
From 2462: From 2462:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface. them to an interface.
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is unconditionally mandatory for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.
all interface addresses assigned to the node.
4.5.3 RFC3041 - Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 4.5.3 RFC3041 - Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041] Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
is unconditionally optional. Currently, there is discussion of the MAY be supported. Currently, there is discussion of the
applicability of temporary addresses. applicability of temporary addresses.
4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6
Default Address Selection for IPv6 [DEFADDR] is conditionally Default Address Selection for IPv6 [DEFADDR] SHOULD be supported, if
mandatory, if a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or a node has
a node has more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured.
configured.
The rules specified in the document are the only MUST to implement The rules specified in the document are the only MUST to implement
portion of the architecture. There is no requirement that a node be portion of the architecture. A node MUST belong to one site. There
able to be part of more than one zone. is no requirement that a node be able to belong to more than one.
This draft has been approved as a proposed standard.
4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC2462] defines stateless Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. For those IPv6
address autoconfiguation. However, it does state that in the absence Nodes that implement a stateful configuration mechanism such as
of routers, hosts MUST attempt to use stateful autoconfiguration. [DHCPv6], those nodes MUST initiate stateful address
There is also reference to stateful address autoconfiguration being autoconfiguration upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the
defined elsewhere. Additionally, DHCP [DHCP] states that it is on Managed address flag set. In addition, as defined in [RFC2462], in
option for stateful address autoconfiguation. the absence of a router, hosts that implement a stateful
configuration mechanism such as [DHCPv6] MUST attempt to use stateful
address autoconfiguration.
From the current set of specification, it is not clear the level of For IPv6 Nodes that do not implement the optional stateful
support that is needed for statefull Address Autoconfiguration. configuration mechanisms such as [DHCPv6], the Managed Address flag
of a Router Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in the
absence of a router, this type of node is not required to initiate
stateful address autoconfiguration as specified in [RFC2462].
4.6 Other 4.6 Other
4.6.1 RFC2473 - Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification 4.6.1 RFC2473 - Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification
Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] conditionally mandatory, with the
condition being implementing the mobile node functionality or Home Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] MUST be suppored for nodes
Agent functionality of Mobile IP [MIPv6]. implementing mobile node functionality or Home Agent functionality of
Mobile IP [MIPv6].
4.6.2 RFC2710 - Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 4.6.2 RFC2710 - Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] is Conditionally Mandatory, Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] MUST be supported by nodes
where the condition is if the node joins any multicast groups other supporting multicast applications. A primary IPv6 multicast
than the all-nodes-on-link group (which will always be the case if it application is Neighbor Discovery (all those solicited-node mcast
runs ND or DAD on the link). addresses must be joined).
There has been some discussion that hosts may not be able to depend When MLDv2 [MLDv2] has been completed, it SHOULD take precedence over
on MLD if there is no connection to a router, therefore this may not MLD.
be Mandatory. Further discussion is needed on this.
5. Transport Layer and DNS 5. Transport Layer and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer 5.1 Transport Layer
5.1.1 RFC2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms 5.1.1 RFC2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms
This specification is conditionally mandatory, if Jumbograms are This specification is MUST be supported if jumbograms are implemented
implemented [RFC-2675]. One open issue is if this document needs to [RFC-2675]. One open issue is if this document needs to be updated,
be updated, as it refers to an obsoleted document. as it refers to an obsoleted document.
5.2 DNS 5.2 DNS
DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035] and [RFC-1886] MAY be
Support for DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035] and [RFC- supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve addresses.
1886], is unconditionally optional. Not all nodes will need to
resolve addresses.
5.2.1 RFC2874 - DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and 5.2.1 RFC2874 - DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and
Renumbering Renumbering
DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering is DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering
unconditionally optional MAY be supported.
5.2.2 RFC2732 - Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's 5.2.2 RFC2732 - Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's
RFC 2732 is conditionally mandatory if the node uses URL's. RFC 2732 is MUST be supported if applications on the node use URL's.
5.3 Other 5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
5.3.1 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 [DHCPv6] is MAY be
supported.
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 [DHCPv6] is 6. IPv4 Support and Transition
unconditionally optional.
6. Transition IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. However, this document should consider
the following cases: native IPv6 only; native IPv6 with IPv4
supported only via tunneling over IPv6; and native IPv6 and native
IPv4 both fully supported.
6.1 Transition Mechanisms 6.1 Transition Mechanisms
IPv6 nodes should use native address instead of transition-based IPv6 nodes SHOULD use native address instead of transition-based
addressing. addressing.
6.1.1 RFC2893 - Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers 6.1.1 RFC2893 - Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers
If an IPv6 node implement dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893 If an IPv6 node implement dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893
is unconditionally mandatory. MUST be supported.
This document is currently being updated. This document is currently being updated.
7. Mobility 7. Mobility
Currently, the MIPv6 specification [MIPv6] is nearing completion. Currently, the MIPv6 specification [MIPv6] is nearing completion.
Mobile IPv6 places some requirements on IPv6 nodes. This document is Mobile IPv6 places some requirements on IPv6 nodes. This document is
not meant to prescribe behaviors, but to capture the consensus of not meant to prescribe behaviors, but to capture the consensus of
what should be done for IPv6 nodes with respect to Mobile IPv6. what should be done for IPv6 nodes with respect to Mobile IPv6.
The Mobile IP specification [MIPv6] specifies the following classes Mobile Node functionality MAY be supported.
of functionality: Correspondent Node, Mobile Node, Route Optimization
functionality and Home Agent Functionality.
Correspondent Node functionality is Unconditionally Mandatory.
Mobile Node functionality is Conditionally Mandatory for nodes that
need to maintain sessions while changing their point of attachment to
the Internet.
Route Optimization functionality is conditionally mandatory for Route Optimization functionality SHOULD be supported for hosts.
hosts. Route Optimization is unconditionally optional for routers. Route Optimization is not required for routers.
There is ongoing discussion about the role of Route Optimization.
This document should list some of the benefits of Route Optimization.
Home Agent functionality is Unconditionally Optional. Home Agent functionality is MAY be supported.
8. Security 8. Security
This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node. This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.
Other issues that IPsec cannot resolve are described in the security Other issues that IPsec cannot resolve are described in the security
considerations. considerations.
8.1 Basic Architecture 8.1 Basic Architecture
Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] is Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] MUST be
unconditionally mandatory except of the following description. supported. IPsec transport mode MUST be supported. IPsec tunnel mode
MUST be supoorted.
Requirements that this section describes explicitly MUST refer to
RFC-2401.
IPsec transport mode is unconditionally mandatory.
IPsec tunnel mode is unconditionally mandatory.
[DISCUSSION: Network administrators want to make separated
networks to be a single network by using a site-local address
space. The routers should be implemented both IPsec transport
mode and a generic tunnel in this case, but if there is no
statement what it should be, the administrators must use IPsec
tunnel mode because it is used now in IPv4 network.]
Applying single security association of ESP [RFC-2406] to a packet is Applying single security association of ESP [RFC-2406] to a packet is
unconditionally mandatory, although RFC-2401 defines four types of MUST, although RFC-2401 defines four types of combination of security
combination of security associations that must be supported by associations that must be supported by compliant IPsec hosts.
compliant IPsec hosts.
Applying single security association of AH is conditionally mandatory Applying single security association of AH is MUST be supported, if
if AH [RFC-2402] is implemented. AH [RFC-2402] is implemented.
The following packet type is conditionally mandatory if AH is The following packet type MUST be supported if AH is combined with
combined with ESP: IP|AH|ESP|ULP. ESP: IP|AH|ESP|ULP.
The summary of Basic Combinations of Security Associations in section The summary of Basic Combinations of Security Associations in section
4.5 of RFC-2401 is: 4.5 of RFC-2401 is:
case 1-2 is unconditionally mandatory. case 1-2 MUST be supported.
case 1-1 and 1-3 is conditionally mandatory if AH is implemented. case 1-1 and 1-3 MUST be supported if AH is implemented.
case 1-4, 1-5, 2-5 and 4 is conditionally optional if IPsec tunnel case 1-4, 1-5, 2-5 and 4 MUST be supported if IPsec tunnel mode is
mode is implemented. implemented.
case 2-4 is conditionally optional if IPsec tunnel mode and AH is case 2-4 is MUST be supported if IPsec tunnel mode and AH is
implemented. implemented.
case 3 is not applicable to this document. case 3 is not applicable to this document.
8.2 Security Protocols 8.2 Security Protocols
ESP [RFC-2406] is unconditionally mandatory even when ESP is not ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported.
used. AH [RFC-2402] is unconditionally mandatory also.
AH is need if there is data in IP header to be protected, for AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported. AH is needed if there is data in IP
example, an extension header. header to be protected, for example, an extension header.
In practice, ESP can provide the same security services as AH and as However, in practice, ESP can provide the same security services as
well as confidentiality, thus there is no real need for AH. AH as well as confidentiality, thus there is no real need for AH.
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms 8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV [RFC-2405] is
conditionally mandatory if you need to have interoperability with old
implementation by using DES-CBC. Note the IPsec WG recommends not
using this algorithm. 3DES-CBC is conditionally mandatory so that the
part of ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] is unconditionally
mandatory. Note that the IPsec WG also recommends not using this
algorithm. AES-128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] is unconditionally
mandatory but there is on-going work in the IPsec WG. NULL Encryption
algorithm [RFC-2410] is conditionally mandatory. It is only for
providing integrity service, and also for debugging use.
The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2404], is The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV [RFC-2405] is MUST
unconditionally mandatory. This MUST be used if AH is implemented. be supported if interoperability is required with old implementations
The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2403], is supported DES-CBC. Note, however, the IPsec WG recommends not using
unconditionally mandatory. This MUST be used if AH is implemented. this algorithm. 3DES-CBC is SHOULD be supported, so that ESP CBC-Mode
The "HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec" [ipsec-ciph- Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec
sha-256] is unconditionally mandatory, but it is being discussed in WG also recommends not using this algorithm.
the IPsec WG. An implementer MUST refer to Keyed-Hashing for Message
Authentication [RFC-2104].
8.4 Key Management Method AES-128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] is MUST be supported. NULL
Encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing
integrity service and also for debugging use.
Manual keying is unconditionally mandatory. The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2404] MUST be
supported. This MUST be used if AH is implemented. The Use of HMAC-
MD5-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. This
MUST be used if AH is implemented. The "HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and
Its Use With IPsec" [ipsec-ciph-sha-256] MUST be supported, but it is
being discussed in the IPsec WG. An implementer MUST refer to Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104].
Automated SA and Key Management is conditionally mandatory for the 8.4 Key Management Methods
use of the anti-replay features of AH and ESP, and to accommodate
on-demand creation of SAs, session-oriented keying.
IKE [RFC-2407, RFC-2408, RFC-2409] is unconditionally optional for Manual keying MUST be supported
unicast traffic. Note that the IPsec WG is working on the successor
to IKE [SOI]. Automated SA and Key Management SHOULD be supported for the use of
the anti-replay features of AH and ESP, and to accommodate on-demand
creation of SAs, session-oriented keying.
IKE [RFC-2407, RFC-2408, RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast
traffic. Note that the IPsec WG is working on the successor to IKE
[SOI].
9. Router Functionality 9. Router Functionality
This section defines general considerations for IPv6 nodes that act This section defines general considerations for IPv6 nodes that act
as routers. It is for future study if this document, or a separate as routers. It is for future study if this document, or a separate
document is needed to fully define IPv6 router requirements. document is needed to fully define IPv6 router requirements.
Currently, this section does not discuss routing protocols. Currently, this section does not discuss routing protocols.
9.1 General 9.1 General
9.1.1 RFC2711 - IPv6 Router Alert Option 9.1.1 RFC2711 - IPv6 Router Alert Option
The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is conditionally mandatory if the The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is MUST be supported by nodes that
node performs packet forwarding at the IP layer (i.e. - the node is a perform packet forwarding at the IP layer (i.e. - the node is a
router). router).
9.1.2 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 9.1.2 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation is
unconditionally mandatory. Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
be supported.
10. Network Management 10. Network Management
Network Management, is generally not a requirement for IPv6 nodes. Network Management, MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for
However, for IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the
may be the only possibility to control these hosts. only possibility to control these hosts.
10.1 MIBs 10.1 MIBs
In a general sense, MIBs can be considered conditionally mandatory In a general sense, MIBs are required by the nodes that support a
when the node supports an SNMP agent. This section is for further SNMP agent. It should be also noted that these specifications are
study. It should be also noted that these specifications are being being updated.
updated updated.
10.1.1 RFC2452 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the Transmission 10.1.1 RFC2452 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the Transmission
Control Protocol Control Protocol
TBA TBA
10.1.2 RFC2454 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram 10.1.2 RFC2454 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram
Protocol Protocol
TBA TBA
skipping to change at page 16, line 19 skipping to change at page 14, line 18
implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
security features to ensure security on the Internet. "IP Security security features to ensure security on the Internet. "IP Security
Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read. Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read.
The security considerations in RFC2401 describes, The security considerations in RFC2401 describes,
The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401]. Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].
IPsec cannot cover all of security requirement for IPv6 node. For IPsec cannot cover all of security requirement for IPv6 node. For
example, IPsec cannot protect the node from kind of DoS attack. The example, IPsec cannot protect the node from some kinds of DoS attack.
node may need a mechanism of IPv6 packet filtering functionality, and The node may need a mechanism of IPv6 packet filtering functionality,
also may need a mechanism of rate limitation. and also may need a mechanism of rate limitation.
The use of ICMPv6 without IPsec can expose the nodes in question to The use of ICMPv6 without IPsec can expose the nodes in question to
various kind of attacks including Denial-of-Service, Impersonation, various kind of attacks including Denial-of-Service, Impersonation,
Man-in-the-Middle, and others. Note that only manually keyed IPsec Man-in-the-Middle, and others. Note that only manually keyed IPsec
can protect some of the ICMPv6 messages that are related to can protect some of the ICMPv6 messages that are related to
establishing communications. This is due to chick en-and-egg problems establishing communications. This is due to chick en-and-egg problems
on running automated key management protocols on top of IP. However, on running automated key management protocols on top of IP. However,
manually keyed IPsec may require a large number of SAs in order to manually keyed IPsec may require a large number of SAs in order to
run on a large network due to the use of many addresses during ICMPv6 run on a large network due to the use of many addresses during ICMPv6
Neighbor Discovery. Neighbor Discovery.
skipping to change at page 16, line 43 skipping to change at page 14, line 42
An implementer should also consider the analysis of anycast An implementer should also consider the analysis of anycast
[ANYCAST]. [ANYCAST].
12. References 12. References
12.1 Normative 12.1 Normative
[ADDRARCHv3] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing [ADDRARCHv3] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", Work in progress. Architecture", Work in progress.
[DEFADDR] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", Work [DEFADDR] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", Work in
in progress. progress.
[DHCPv6] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Work in progress. for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Work in progress.
[MIPv6] Johnson D. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in [MIPv6] Johnson D. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in IPv6",
IPv6", Work in progress. Work in progress.
[RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. (MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress.
[RFC-1886] Thomson, S. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to sup- [RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specˇ
port IP version 6, RFC 1886, December 1995. ification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU [RFC-1886] Thomson, S. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to support
Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. IP version 6, RFC 1886, December 1995.
[RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC: [RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU Discovˇ
Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, ery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
February 1997.
[RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
1997.
[RFC-2373] Hinden, R. and Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC-2373] Hinden, R. and Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for [RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the
the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC-2402] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication [RFC-2402] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication Header",
Header", RFC 2402, November 1998. RFC 2402, November 1998.
[RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within [RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998. ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
[RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1 [RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1 within
within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[RFC-2405] Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher [RFC-2405] Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998. Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.
[RFC-2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security [RFC-2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security
Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.
[RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of [RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpreˇ
Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998. tation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
[RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner, [RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner,
J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management
Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998. Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.
[RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key [RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key Exchange
Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998. (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm [RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm
and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998 and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998
[RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher [RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algoˇ
Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998 rithms", RFC 2451, November 1998
[RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver- [RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Version 6
sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor [RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor Disˇ
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December covery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
1998.
[RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address [RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoˇ
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462. configuration", RFC 2462.
[RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Pro- [RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Protoˇ
tocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998. col Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.
[RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC [RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC
2472, December 1998. 2472, December 1998.
[RFC-2473] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling in
in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast [RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast Lisˇ
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October tener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999.
1999.
[RFC-2711] Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert [RFC-2711] Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert
Option", RFC 2711, October 1999. Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.
12.2 Non-Normative 12.2 Non-Normative
[ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Any- [ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast"
cast" Work in Progress. Work in Progress.
[SOI] C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Pro- [SOI] C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Progress.
gress.
[RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, [RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
August 1980. August 1980.
[RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili- [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and faciliˇ
ties", RFC 1034, November 1987. ties", RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC [RFC-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147,
2147, May 1997. May 1997.
[RFC-2452] M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the [RFC-2452] M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the
Transmission Control Protocol", RFC2452, December Transmission Control Protocol", RFC2452, December 1998.
1998.
[RFC-2454] M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the [RFC-2454] M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the
User Datagram Protocol, RFC2454", December 1998. User Datagram Protocol, RFC2454", December 1998.
[RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Eth- [RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
ernet Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998. Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC-2465] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for [RFC-2465] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for IP
IP Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group", Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group",
RFC2465, December 1998. RFC2465, December 1998.
[RFC-2466] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for [RFC-2466] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for IP
IP Version 6: ICMPv6 Group", RFC2466, December 1998. Version 6: ICMPv6 Group", RFC2466, December 1998.
[RFC-2467] M. Crawford, "A Method for the Tranmission of IPv6
Packets over FDDI Networks", RFC2467, December 1998.
[RFC-2470] M. Crawford, T. Narten, S. Thomas, "A Method for the [RFC-2470] M. Crawford, T. Narten, S. Thomas, "A Method for the
Tranmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks", Tranmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks",
RFC2470, December 1998. RFC2470, December 1998.
[RFC-2491] G. Armitage, P. Schulter, M. Jork, G. Harter, "IPv6 [RFC-2491] G. Armitage, P. Schulter, M. Jork, G. Harter, "IPv6 over
over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks", RFC2491,
RFC2491, January 1999. January 1999.
[RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 [RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over
over ATM Networks", RFC2492, January 1999. ATM Networks", RFC2492, January 1999.
[RFC-2497] I. Souvatzis, "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 [RFC-2497] I. Souvatzis, "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6
Packets over ARCnet Networks", RFC2497, January 1999. Packets over ARCnet Networks", RFC2497, January 1999.
[RFC-2529] Carpenter, B. and Jung, C., "Transmission of IPv6 over [RFC-2529] Carpenter, B. and Jung, C., "Transmission of IPv6 over
IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March
March 1999. 1999.
[RFC-2590] A. Conta, A. Malis, M. Mueller, "Transmission of IPv6 [RFC-2590] A. Conta, A. Malis, M. Mueller, "Transmission of IPv6
Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC
2590, May 1999. 2590, May 1999.
[RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo- [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumboˇ
grams", RFC 2675, August 1999. grams", RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for [RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.
1999.
[RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. [RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder,
Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Net- "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses",
work Addresses", RFC2851, June 2000. RFC2851, June 2000.
[RFC-2874] Crawford, M. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to Sup- [RFC-2874] Crawford, M. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to Support
port IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, July
2874, July 2000. 2000.
[RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms [RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000. IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.
[RFC-3019] B. Haberman, R. Worzella, "IP Version 6 Management [RFC-3019] B. Haberman, R. Worzella, "IP Version 6 Management Inforˇ
Information Base for the Multicast Listener Discovery mation Base for the Multicast Listener Discovery Protoˇ
Protocol", RFC3019, January 2001. col", RFC3019, January 2001.
[RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for [RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for Stateˇ
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC less Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, Janˇ
3041, January 2001. uary 2001.
[IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home [IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002. Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002.
13. Authors and Acknowledgements 13. Authors and Acknowledgements
This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team: This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Jari Arkko Jari Arkko
[jari.arkko@ericsson.com] [jari.arkko@ericsson.com]
skipping to change at page 22, line 28 skipping to change at page 20, line 19
Dave Thaler Dave Thaler
[dthaler@windows.microsoft.com] [dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]
Juha Wiljakka Juha Wiljakka
[juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com] [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]
The authors would like to thank Adam Machalek, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments. The authors would like to thank Adam Machalek, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments.
14. Editor's Contact Information 14. Editor's Contact Information
Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com) or to: Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the IPv6
Working Group mailing list (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com) or to:
John Loughney John Loughney
Nokia Research Center Nokia Research Center
It„merenkatu 11-13 It„merenkatu 11-13
00180 Helsinki 00180 Helsinki
Finland Finland
Phone: +358 50 483 6242 Phone: +358 50 483 6242
Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com
Appendix A: Change history Appendix A: Change history
The following is a list of changes since the previous version. The following is a list of changes since the previous version.
- Small updates based upon feedback from the IPv6 mailing list. - Small updates based upon feedback from the IPv6 mailing list.
- Refomated chapters. - Refomated chapters.
- Added Appendix B - List of RFCs. - Added Appendix B - List of RFCs.
TBD TBD
Appendix B: List of RFCs Appendix B: Specifications Not Included
This is a list of RFC to look at during the editing process. They are classified by generic categories and by level of potential conformance. The * denotes some sections of the specification have lesser level of conformance required.
RFC Section Conformance
========================================================
RFC-1034 5.2.1 unconditionally optional
RFC-1035 5.2.1 unconditionally optional
RFC-1886 5.2.1 unconditionally optional
RFC-1981 4.3.1 unconditionally optional
RFC-2104 8.3 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2147 5.1.1 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2373 4.5.1 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2401 8.1 unconditionally mandatory *
RFC-2402 8.1 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2403 8.3 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2404 8.3 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2405 8.3 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2406 8.1 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2407 8.4 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2408 8.4 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2409 8.4 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2410 8.3 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2451 8.3 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2452 10.1.1 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2454 10.1.2 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2460 4.1.1 unconditionally mandatory *
RFC-2461 4.2.1 unconditionally mandatory *
RFC-2462 4.5.2 unconditionally mandatory *
RFC-2463 4.5.1 unconditionally mandatory
RFC-2464 3.1.1 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2465 10.1.3 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2466 10.1.4 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2467 3.1.2 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2470 3.1.3 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2472 3.1.4 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2473 4.6.1 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2491 3.1.5 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2492 3.1.6 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2497 3.1.7 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2529 3.1.8 unconditionally optional
RFC-2590 3.1.9 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2675 4.3.2 unconditionally optional
RFC-2710 4.6.2 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2711 9.1.1 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2732 5.2.2 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2851 10.1.5 conditionally mandatory
RFC-2874 5.3.1 unconditionally optional
RFC-2893 6.1.1 conditionally mandatory
RFC-3019 10.1.6 conditionally mandatory
RFC-3041 4.5.3 unconditionally optional
Appendix C: Specifications Not Included
Here is a list of documents considered, but not included in this document. In general, Information documents are not considered to place requirements on implementations. Experimental documents are just that, experimental, and cannot place requirements on the general behavior of IPv6 nodes. Here is a list of documents considered, but not included in this document.
In general, Information documents are not considered to place requirements on
implementations. Experimental documents are just that, experimental, and
cannot place requirements on the general behavior of IPv6 nodes.
Upper Protocols Upper Protocols
2428 FTP Extensions For IPv6 And NATs 2428 FTP Extensions For IPv6 And NATs
Compression Compression
2507 IP Header Compression 2507 IP Header Compression
2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers For Low-Speed Serial Links 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers For Low-Speed Serial Links
2509 IP Header Compression Over PPP 2509 IP Header Compression Over PPP
Informational Informational
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/