wdiff draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-02.txt

Network
IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia
July 1,
October 31, 2002

Expires: December 29, 2002 April 31, 2003

IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-02.txt

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2003. April 31, 2003

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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of this Document
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
3. Sub-IP Layer
3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
3.2 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP
3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over Foo ATM Networks
4. IP Layer
4.1 General
4.2 Neighbor Discovery
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.4 ICMPv6 RFC2463 - ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
4.5 Addressing
4.6 Other
5. Transport and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer
5.2 DNS
5.3 Other Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
6. IPv4 Support and Transition
6.1 Transition Mechanisms
7. Mobility
8. Security
8.1 Basic Architecture
8.2 Security Protocols
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
8.4 Key Management Method
9. Router Functionality
9.1 General
10. Network Management
10.1 MIBs
11. Security Considerations
12. References
12.1 Normative
12.2 Non-Normative
13. Authors and Acknowledgements
14. Editor's Address
Appendix A: Change history
Appendix B: List of Specifications Included
Appendix C: Specifications Not Included

1. Introduction

The goal of this document is to define a minimal set of functionality
required for an IPv6 node. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional
or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to
implement the requirements listed in this document.

The document is written to minimize protocol discussion in this
document but instead make pointers to RFCs. In case of any
conflicting text, this document takes less precedence than the
normative RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this
document.

During the process of writing this document, if any issue is raised
regarding the normative RFCs, the consensus is, whenever possible, to
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
purposes.

Although the document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.

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 John Postel's Robustness Principle:

Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. [RFC793].

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 the requirements for IPv6 nodes, in order
to ensure interoperability.

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

1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups

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
have the following definitions:

Description of an IPv6 Node
- a device that implements IPv6

Description of an IPv6 router

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

Description of an IPv6 Host

- 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

ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode

AH Authentication Header

DAD Duplicate Address Detection

ESP Encapsulating Security Payload

ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol

MIB Management Information Base

MTU Maximum Transfer Unit

NA Neighbor Advertisement

NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access

ND Neighbor Discovery

NS Neighbor Solicitation

NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection

PPP Point-to-Point Protocol

ULP Upper Layer Protocol

3. Sub-IP Layer

An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
sending packet. By definition, these specifications are
conditionally mandatory, 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.

3.1 A.K.A -

As IPv6 is run over Foo

3.1.1 new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major
layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.

3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks

Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] is
conditionally mandatory if the node supports MUST
be supported for nodes supporting Ethernet interfaces.

3.1.2 RFC2467

3.2 RFC2472 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets IP version 6 over FDDI
Networks

A Method for the Transmission of PPP

IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks
[RFC-2467] PPP [RFC-2472] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports FDDI
interfaces.

3.1.3 RFC2470 - A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token
Ring Networks

A Method MUST be supported for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring
Networks [RFC-2470] is conditionally mandatory if the node supports
token ring interfaces.

3.1.4 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP

IPv6 over PPP [RFC-2472] is conditionally mandatory if the node
supports nodes that use PPP.

3.1.5 RFC2491 - IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks

IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks [RFC2491] is
conditionally mandatory if the node supports NBMA network interfaces.

3.1.6

3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks

IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] is conditionally mandatory if the
node supports MUSt be supported for nodes
supporting ATM interfaces. Additionally, the specification states:

A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
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

4.1 General

4.1.1 RFC2460 - Internet Protocol Version 6

The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This
specification is unconditionally mandatory. MUST be supported.

Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
extensions must MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460.

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

Nodes must MUST always be able to receive fragment headers. However, if it
does not implement path MTU discovery it may not need to send
fragment headers. However, nodes that do not implement transmission
of fragment headers need to impose limitation to payload size of
layer 4 protocols.

The capability of being a final destination is unconditionally
mandatory, MUST be supported,
whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination is unconditionally optional (i.e. MAY be
supported(i.e. - host functionality vs. router functionality).

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

A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
Security Payload. [RFC2460]

It is unconditionally mandatory for an

An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be
noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers
and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused by them.

4.2 Neighbor Discovery

4.2.1 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6

Neighbor Discovery is conditionally mandatory. SHOULD be supported. RFC 2461 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., 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 details of how one uses ND on
NBMA links is an area for further study."

Some detailed analysis of Neighbor discovery follows:

Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
attached link. Router Discovery is unconditionally mandatory MUST be supported for
implementations. However, the an implementation MAY support disabling
this feature. function.

Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
Prefix discovery is unconditionally mandatory MUST be supported for implementations. However,
the implementation with MAY support the option to disable 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.
It is unconditionally mandatory MUST be supported for all
paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is unconditionally optional not required for
paths between routers. It is unconditionally optional required for multicast. However, when a
node receives a unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (that may
be a NUD's NS), the node MUST respond to it (i.e. send a unicast
Neighbor Advertisement).

Duplicate Address Detection is unconditionally mandatory MUST be supported (RFC2462 section 5.4
specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses).

Sending Router Solicitation is unconditionally mandatory MUST be supported for host
implementation, with but MAY support a configuration option to disable
this functionality.

Receiving and processing Router Advertisements is unconditionally
mandatory MUST be supported for
host implementation, with a configuration implementation s. However, the implementation MAY support the
option to
disable of disabling this functionality. function. The ability to understand specific
Router Advertisements is dependent on supporting the specification
where the RA is specified.

Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) are unconditionally mandatory. MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required
for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).

Redirect Function is conditionally mandatory. SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
Redirect Function is unconditionally mandatory. MUST be supported.

4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size

4.3.1 RFC1981 - Path MTU Discovery

Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. Nodes with a link
MTU larger than the minimum IPv6 link MTU (1280 octets) can use Path
MTU Discovery in order to discover the real path MTU. The relative
overhead of IPv6 headers is unconditionally optional. minimized through the use of longer
packets, thus making better use of the available bandwidth.

The IPv6 specification [RFC-2460] states in section 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
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

IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] is unconditionally optional. MAY be supported.

4.4 ICMPv6

4.1.1 RFC2463 - ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)

ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] is unconditionally mandatory. MUST be supported.

4.5 Addressing

Currently, there is discussion on-going on support for site-local
addressing.

4.5.1 RFC2373 - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture

The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-2373] is a mandatory part of
IPv6. MUST be supported.
Currently, this specification is being updated by [ADDRARCHv3].

4.5.2 RFC2462 - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration

IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
This specification is unconditionally mandatory MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.

It is unconditionally mandatory for nodes

Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses
as described in this specification.

From 2462:

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.

Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) is unconditionally mandatory for
all interface addresses assigned to the node. MUST be supported.

4.5.3 RFC3041 - Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6

Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
is unconditionally optional.
MAY be supported. Currently, there is discussion of the
applicability of temporary addresses.

4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6

Default Address Selection for IPv6 [DEFADDR] is conditionally
mandatory, SHOULD be supported, if
a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or a node has
more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured.

The rules specified in the document are the only MUST to implement
portion of the architecture. A node MUST belong to one site. There
is no requirement that a node be able to be part of belong to more than one zone. one.

This draft has been approved as a proposed standard.

4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration

IPv6 Stateless

Stateful Address Autoconfiguration [RFC2462] defines stateless
address autoconfiguation. However, it does state MAY be supported. For those IPv6
Nodes that implement a stateful configuration mechanism such as
[DHCPv6], those nodes MUST initiate stateful address
autoconfiguration upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the
Managed address flag set. In addition, as defined in [RFC2462], in
the absence of routers, a router, hosts that implement a stateful
configuration mechanism such as [DHCPv6] MUST attempt to use stateful autoconfiguration.
There is also reference to stateful
address autoconfiguration being
defined elsewhere. Additionally, DHCP [DHCP] states autoconfiguration.

For IPv6 Nodes that it is on
option for stateful address autoconfiguation.

From the current set of specification, it is do not clear implement the optional stateful
configuration mechanisms such as [DHCPv6], the level Managed Address flag
of
support that a Router Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in the
absence of a router, this type of node is needed for statefull Address Autoconfiguration. not required to initiate
stateful address autoconfiguration as specified in [RFC2462].

4.6 Other

4.6.1 RFC2473 - Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification

Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] conditionally mandatory, with the
condition being MUST be suppored for nodes
implementing the mobile node functionality or Home Agent functionality of
Mobile IP [MIPv6].

4.6.2 RFC2710 - Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6

Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] is Conditionally Mandatory,
where the condition is if the node joins any MUST be supported by nodes
supporting multicast groups other
than the all-nodes-on-link group (which will always applications. A primary IPv6 multicast
application is Neighbor Discovery (all those solicited-node mcast
addresses must be the case if it
runs ND or DAD on the link).

There joined).

When MLDv2 [MLDv2] has been some discussion that hosts may not be able to depend
on MLD if there is no connection to a router, therefore this may not
be Mandatory. Further discussion is needed on this. completed, it SHOULD take precedence over
MLD.

5. Transport Layer and DNS

5.1 Transport Layer

5.1.1 RFC2147 - TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms

This specification is conditionally mandatory, MUST be supported if Jumbograms jumbograms are implemented
[RFC-2675]. One open issue is if this document needs to be updated,
as it refers to an obsoleted document.

5.2 DNS

Support for
DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035] and [RFC-
1886], is unconditionally optional. [RFC-1886] MAY be
supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve addresses.

5.2.1 RFC2874 - DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and
Renumbering

DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering is
unconditionally optional
MAY be supported.

5.2.2 RFC2732 - Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's

RFC 2732 is conditionally mandatory MUST be supported if applications on the node uses use URL's.

5.3 Other

5.3.1 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)

The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 [DHCPv6] is
unconditionally optional. MAY be
supported.

6. IPv4 Support and 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

IPv6 nodes should SHOULD use native address instead of transition-based
addressing.

6.1.1 RFC2893 - Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers

If an IPv6 node implement dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893
is unconditionally mandatory.
MUST be supported.

This document is currently being updated.

7. Mobility

Currently, the MIPv6 specification [MIPv6] is nearing completion.
Mobile IPv6 places some requirements on IPv6 nodes. This document is
not meant to prescribe behaviors, but to capture the consensus of
what should be done for IPv6 nodes with respect to Mobile IPv6.

The Mobile IP specification [MIPv6] specifies the following classes
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. MAY be supported.

Route Optimization functionality is conditionally mandatory SHOULD be supported for hosts.
Route Optimization is unconditionally optional 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. MAY be supported.

8. Security

This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.
Other issues that IPsec cannot resolve are described in the security
considerations.

8.1 Basic Architecture

Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] is
unconditionally mandatory except of the following description.

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
supported. IPsec transport mode and a generic tunnel in this case, but if there is no
statement what it should be, the administrators must use MUST be supported. IPsec tunnel mode because it is used now in IPv4 network.]
MUST be supoorted.

Applying single security association of ESP [RFC-2406] to a packet is
unconditionally mandatory,
MUST, although RFC-2401 defines four types of combination of security
associations that must be supported by compliant IPsec hosts.

Applying single security association of AH is conditionally mandatory MUST be supported, if
AH [RFC-2402] is implemented.

The following packet type is conditionally mandatory MUST be supported if AH is combined with
ESP: IP|AH|ESP|ULP.

The summary of Basic Combinations of Security Associations in section
4.5 of RFC-2401 is:

case 1-2 is unconditionally mandatory. MUST be supported.
case 1-1 and 1-3 is conditionally mandatory MUST be supported if AH is implemented.
case 1-4, 1-5, 2-5 and 4 is conditionally optional MUST be supported if IPsec tunnel mode is
implemented.
case 2-4 is conditionally optional MUST be supported if IPsec tunnel mode and AH is
implemented.
case 3 is not applicable to this document.

8.2 Security Protocols

ESP [RFC-2406] is unconditionally mandatory even when ESP is not
used. MUST be supported.

AH [RFC-2402] is unconditionally mandatory also. MUST be supported. AH is need needed if there is data in IP
header to be protected, for example, an extension header.

However, in practice, ESP can provide the same security services as
AH and as well as confidentiality, thus there is no real need for AH.

8.3 Transforms and Algorithms

The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV [RFC-2405] is
conditionally mandatory MUST
be supported if you need to have interoperability is required with old
implementation by using implementations
supported DES-CBC. Note Note, however, the IPsec WG recommends not using
this algorithm. 3DES-CBC is conditionally mandatory SHOULD be supported, so that the
part of ESP CBC-Mode
Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] is unconditionally
mandatory. MUST be supported. 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. MUST be supported. NULL
Encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] is conditionally mandatory. It is only MUST be supported for providing
integrity service, service and also for debugging use.

The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2404], is
unconditionally mandatory. [RFC-2404] MUST be
supported. This MUST be used if AH is implemented. The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 HMAC-
MD5-96 within ESP, described in [RFC-2403], is
unconditionally mandatory. [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] is unconditionally mandatory, [ipsec-ciph-sha-256] MUST be supported, but it is
being discussed in the IPsec WG. An implementer MUST refer to Keyed-Hashing Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104].

8.4 Key Management Method Methods

Manual keying is unconditionally mandatory. MUST be supported

Automated SA and Key Management is conditionally mandatory 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] is unconditionally optional MAY be supported for unicast
traffic. Note that the IPsec WG is working on the successor to IKE
[SOI].

9. Router Functionality

This section defines general considerations for IPv6 nodes that act
as routers. It is for future study if this document, or a separate
document is needed to fully define IPv6 router requirements.
Currently, this section does not discuss routing protocols.

9.1 General

9.1.1 RFC2711 - IPv6 Router Alert Option

The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is conditionally mandatory if the
node performs MUST be supported by nodes that
perform packet forwarding at the IP layer (i.e. - the node is a
router).

9.1.2 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6

Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation is
unconditionally mandatory. MUST
be supported.

10. Network Management

Network Management, is generally not a requirement for MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for
IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the
only possibility to control these hosts.

10.1 MIBs

In a general sense, MIBs can be considered conditionally mandatory
when are required by the node supports an nodes that support a
SNMP agent. This section is for further
study. It should be also noted that these specifications are
being
updated updated.

10.1.1 RFC2452 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the Transmission
Control Protocol

TBA

10.1.2 RFC2454 - IPv6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram
Protocol

TBA

10.1.3 RFC2465 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: Textual
Conventions and General Group

TBA

10.1.4 RFC2466 - Management Information Base for IP Version 6: ICMPv6
Group

TBA

10.1.5 RFC2851 - Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses

TBA

10.1.6 RFC3019 - IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol

TBA

11. Security Considerations

This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but
implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
security features to ensure security on the Internet. "IP Security
Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read.

The security considerations in RFC2401 describes,

The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].

IPsec cannot cover all of security requirement for IPv6 node. For
example, IPsec cannot protect the node from kind some kinds of DoS attack.
The node may need a mechanism of IPv6 packet filtering functionality,
and also may need a mechanism of rate limitation.

The use of ICMPv6 without IPsec can expose the nodes in question to
various kind of attacks including Denial-of-Service, Impersonation,
Man-in-the-Middle, and others. Note that only manually keyed IPsec
can protect some of the ICMPv6 messages that are related to
establishing communications. This is due to chick en-and-egg problems
on running automated key management protocols on top of IP. However,
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
Neighbor Discovery.

An implementer should also consider the analysis of anycast
[ANYCAST].

12. References

12.1 Normative

[ADDRARCHv3] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", Work in progress.

[DEFADDR] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", Work in
progress.

[DHCPv6] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Work in progress.

[MIPv6] Johnson D. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in IPv6",
Work in progress.

[MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress.

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

[RFC-1886] Thomson, S. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to sup-
port support
IP version 6, RFC 1886, December 1995.

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

[RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC:
Keyed-Hashing Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
1997.

[RFC-2373] Hinden, R. and Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.

[RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

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

[RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.

[RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.

[RFC-2405] Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.

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

[RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
Interpretation Interpre�
tation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.

[RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner,
J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management
Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.

[RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.

[RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm
and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998

[RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
Algorithms", Algo�
rithms", RFC 2451, November 1998

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

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

[RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", Auto�
configuration", RFC 2462.

[RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Pro-
tocol Proto�
col Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.

[RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC
2472, December 1998.

[RFC-2473] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

[RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast
Listener Lis�
tener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999.

[RFC-2711] Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert
Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.

12.2 Non-Normative

[ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Any-
cast" Anycast"
Work in Progress.

[SOI] C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Pro-
gress. Progress.

[RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
August 1980.

[RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili- facili�
ties", RFC 1034, November 1987.

[RFC-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147,
May 1997.

[RFC-2452] M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the
Transmission Control Protocol", RFC2452, December 1998.

[RFC-2454] M. Daniele, "IPv6 Management Information Base for the
User Datagram Protocol, RFC2454", December 1998.

[RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Eth-
ernet Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998.

[RFC-2465] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for IP
Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group",
RFC2465, December 1998.

[RFC-2466] D. Haskin, S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for IP
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
Tranmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks",
RFC2470, December 1998.

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

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

[RFC-2497] I. Souvatzis, "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6
Packets over ARCnet Networks", RFC2497, January 1999.

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

[RFC-2590] A. Conta, A. Malis, M. Mueller, "Transmission of IPv6
Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC
2590, May 1999.

[RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo- Jumbo�
grams", RFC 2675, August 1999.

[RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.

[RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder,
"Textual Conventions for Internet Net-
work Network Addresses",
RFC2851, June 2000.

[RFC-2874] Crawford, M. and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to Sup-
port Support
IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, July
2000.

[RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.

[RFC-3019] B. Haberman, R. Worzella, "IP Version 6 Management
Information Infor�
mation Base for the Multicast Listener Discovery
Protocol", Proto�
col", RFC3019, January 2001.

[RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for
Stateless State�
less Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January Jan�
uary 2001.

[IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002.

13. Authors and Acknowledgements

This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:

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]

Okabe Nobuo
[nov@tahi.org]

Rajiv Raghunarayan
[raraghun@cisco.com]

Shoichi Sakane
[shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com]
[shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com ]

Dave Thaler
[dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]

Juha Wiljakka
[juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]

The authors would like to thank Adam Machalek, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments.

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:

John Loughney
Nokia Research Center
It�merenkatu 11-13
00180 Helsinki
Finland

Phone: +358 50 483 6242
Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com

Appendix A: Change history

The following is a list of changes since the previous version.

- Small updates based upon feedback from the IPv6 mailing list.
- Refomated chapters.
- Added Appendix B - List of RFCs.

TBD

Appendix B: List of RFCs
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.

Upper Protocols
2428 FTP Extensions For IPv6 And NATs

Compression
2507 IP Header Compression
2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers For Low-Speed Serial Links
2509 IP Header Compression Over PPP

Informational
1752 The Recommendation For The IP Next Generation Protocol API RFCs
1881 IPv6 Address Allocation Management.
1887 An Architecture For Ipv6 Unicast Address Allocation
2104 HMAC: Keyed-Hashing For Message Authentication
2374 An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format.
2450 Proposed TLA And NLA Assignment Rules.

Experimental
2874 DNS Extensions To Support Ipv6 Address Aggregation
2471 IPv6 Testing Address Allocation.

Other
2526 Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast
2732 Format For Literal IPv6 Addr In URLs
2894 Router Renumbering
3122 Extensions To IPv6 ND For Inverse Discovery