draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-04.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-05.txt 
IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
June 27, 2003 August 25, 2003
Expires: December 27, 2003 Expires: February 25, 2004
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-04.txt draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-05.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 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
12.2 Non-Normative 12.2 Non-Normative
13. Authors and Acknowledgements 13. Authors and Acknowledgements
14. Editor's Address 14. Editor's Address
Notices Notices
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The goal of this document is to define the set of functionality The goal of this document is to define the set of functionality
required for an IPv6 node. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional required for an IPv6 node; the functionality common to both hosts and
or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or additional
implement the mandatory requirements listed in this document. features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to implement the
mandatory requirements listed in this document.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
references RFCs for this purpose. In case of any conflicting text, references RFCs for this purpose. In case of any conflicting text,
this document takes less precedence than the normative RFCs, unless this document takes less precedence than the normative RFCs, unless
additional clarifying text is included in this document. additional clarifying text is included in this document.
During the process of writing this document, any issue 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 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
that they should adhere to John Postel's Robustness Principle: that they should adhere to John Postel's Robustness Principle:
Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 50
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 1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes
Internet-Draft
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
Internet-Draft
- 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 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 50
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access 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
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
Internet-Draft
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
ULP Upper Layer Protocol ULP Upper Layer Protocol
Internet-Draft
3. Sub-IP Layer 3. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
sending packet. By definition, these specifications are required sending packets. By definition, these specifications are required
based upon what layer-2 is used. In general, it is reasonable to be 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 conformant IPv6 node and NOT support some legacy interfaces.
As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major
layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete. layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.
3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464 3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] MUST Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] MUST
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 49
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This
specification MUST be supported. 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
Internet-Draft
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 a limitation to the payload size
layer 4 protocols. of layer 4 protocols.
The capability of being a final destination MUST be supported, The capability of being a final destination MUST be supported,
Internet-Draft
whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination MAY be whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination MAY be
supported (i.e. - host functionality vs. router functionality). supported (i.e. - host 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]
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 6, line 39
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 MUST be supported for attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for
implementations. However, an implementation MAY support disabling implementations. However, an implementation MAY support disabling
this function. 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 MUST be supported for implementations. However, the Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. However, the
Internet-Draft
implementation MAY support the option of disabling this function. implementation MAY support the option of disabling this function.
Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all
paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for
paths between routers. It is required for multicast. However, when a paths between routers. However, when a node receives a unicast
node receives a unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (that may Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node
be a NUD's NS), the node MUST respond to it (i.e. send a unicast
Neighbor Advertisement). Internet-Draft
MUST respond to it (i.e. send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement).
Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported (RFC2462 section 5.4 Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported (RFC2462 section 5.4
specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses). specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses).
Sending Router Solicitation MUST be supported for host A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations, but
implementation, but MAY support a configuration option to disable it MAY support a configuration option to disable this functionality.
this functionality.
Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
host implementation s. However, the implementation MAY support the host implementation s. However, the implementation MAY support the
option of disabling this function. The ability to understand specific option of disabling this function. The ability to understand specific
Router Advertisements is dependent on supporting the specification Router Advertisement optionss is dependent on supporting the
where the RA is specified. specification where the RA is specified.
Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required
for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Redirect Function SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router, Redirect functionionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a
Redirect Function MUST be supported. router, Redirect functionionality MUST be supported.
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size 4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981
Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. Nodes with a link Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. It is expected that
MTU larger than the minimum IPv6 link MTU (1280 octets) can use Path most implementations will indeed support this, although the possible
MTU Discovery in order to discover the real path MTU. The relative exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not
overhead of IPv6 headers is minimized through the use of longer justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet
packets, thus making better use of the available bandwidth. fragmentation and reassembly.
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
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
Internet-Draft
other side of the link has no way of knowing less than the MTU is
accepted.
4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675 4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463 4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463
ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported. 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 support for site-local addressing.
addressing.
4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC2373 4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-2373] MUST be supported. The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported.
Currently, this specification is being updated by [ADDRARCHv3].
4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462 4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462
Internet-Draft
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462]. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts. This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.
Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses Nodes that are routers MUST be able to 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
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) MUST be supported. Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.
4.5.3 Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC3041 4.5.3 Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC3041
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041] Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be
configurable on a connection basis within each application when configurable on a connection basis within each application when
Internet-Draft
available. It is noted that a number of applications do not work available. It is noted that a number of applications do not work
with addresses generated with this method, while other applications with addresses generated with this method, while other applications
work quite well with them. work quite well with them.
4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484
Default Address Selection for IPv6 [DEFADDR] SHOULD be supported, if Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC-3484] SHOULD be supported, if
a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or a node has a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or a node has
more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured. more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured.
If supported, the rules specified in the document MUST be If supported, the rules specified in the document MUST be
implemented. A node needs to belong to one site, however there is no implemented. A node needs to belong to one site, however there is no
requirement that a node be able to belong to more than one site. requirement that a node be able to belong to more than one site.
This draft has been approved as a proposed standard.
4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCP [DHCPv6] is Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCP [RFC-3315]
the standard stateful address configuration protocol, see section 5.3 is the standard stateful address configuration protocol, see section
for DHCPv6 support. 5.3 for DHCPv6 support.
For nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration, For nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration,
the node may be unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link- the node may be unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-
local addresses when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' local addresses when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M'
Internet-Draft
flag (Managed address configuration) set and which contains no flag (Managed address configuration) set and which contains no
prefixes advertised for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see prefixes advertised for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see
section 4.5.2). section 4.5.2).
4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] MUST be supported by nodes If an application is going join any-source multicast, it SHOULD
supporting multicast applications. A primary IPv6 multicast support MLDv1. If it is going to support Source-Specific Multicast,
application is Neighbor Discovery (all those solicited-node mcast it MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2] and conform to the Source-Specific
addresses must be joined). Multicast overview document [RFC3569]; refer to Source-Specific
Multicast architecture document for details [SSMARCH].
When MLDv2 [MLDv2] has been completed, it SHOULD take precedence over
MLD.
5. Transport Layer and DNS 5. Transport Layer and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer 5.1 Transport Layer
5.1.1 TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2147 5.1.1 TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2147
This specification MUST be supported if jumbograms are implemented This specification MUST be supported if jumbograms are implemented
[RFC-2675]. One open issue is if this document needs to be updated, [RFC-2675]. One open issue is if this document needs to be updated,
as it refers to an obsoleted document. as it refers to an obsoleted document.
Internet-Draft
5.2 DNS 5.2 DNS
DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-1886], [RFC-3152] DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-1886], [RFC-3152]
and [RFC-3363] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve and [RFC-3363] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve
addresses. Note that RFC 1886 is currently being updated [RFC-1886- names. Note that RFC 1886 is currently being updated [RFC-1886-BIS].
BIS].
5.2.2 Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's - RFC2732 5.2.2 Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's - RFC2732
RFC 2732 MUST be supported if applications on the node use URL's. RFC 2732 MUST be supported if applications on the node use URL's.
5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315
5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration
An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be
unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses
when it is connected to a link over which it receives a router when it is connected to a link over which it receives a router
advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed address configuration) set advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed address configuration) set
and which contains no prefixes advertised for Stateless Address and which contains no prefixes advertised for Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). An IPv6 node that receives a Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). In this situation, the IPv6
router advertisement with the 'M' flag set and that contains Node will be unable to communicate with other off-link nodes unless a
advertised prefixes will configure interfaces with both stateless global or site-local IPv6 address is manually configured.
autoconfiguration addresses and addresses obtained through DHCP.
For those IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP An IPv6 node that receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag
set and that contains advertised prefixes will configure interfaces
Internet-Draft
with both stateless autoconfiguration addresses and addresses
obtained through DHCP.
For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see
section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router, section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router,
IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP.
An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be
unable to dynamically obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local
addresses when it is connected to a link over which it receives a
router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed address
configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). In this
situation, the IPv6 Node will be unable to communicate with other
off-link nodes unless a global or site-local IPv6 address is manually
configured.
5.3.2 Other stateful configuration 5.3.2 Other stateful configuration
DHCP provides the ability to provide other configuration information DHCP provides the ability to provide other configuration information
to the node. An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of to the node. An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of
DHCP will be unable to obtain other configuration information such as DHCP will be unable to obtain other configuration information such as
the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected to a link over the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected to a link over
which the node receives a router advertisement in which the 'O' flag which the node receives a router advertisement in which the 'O' flag
("Other stateful configuration") is set. ("Other stateful configuration") is set.
Internet-Draft
For those IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP For those IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see
section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router, section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router,
hosts that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. For IPv6 Nodes hosts that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. For IPv6 Nodes
that do not implement DHCP, the 'O' flag of a Router Advertisement that do not implement DHCP, the 'O' flag of a Router Advertisement
can be ignored. Furthermore, in the absence of a router, this type can be ignored. Furthermore, in the absence of a router, this type
of node is not required to initiate DHCP. of node is not required to initiate DHCP.
Stateless DHCPv6 [DHCPv6-SL], a subset of DHCPv6, can be used to
obtain configuration information. A node that uses stateless DHCP
must have obtained its IPv6 addresses through some other mechanism,
typically stateless address autoconfiguration.
6. IPv4 Support and Transition 6. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
6.1 Transition Mechanisms 6.1 Transition Mechanisms
IPv6 nodes SHOULD use native address instead of transition-based IPv6 nodes SHOULD use native addressing instead of transition-based
addressing. addressing (according to the algorithms defined in RFC 3484).
6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893 6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893
If an IPv6 node implement dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
This document is currently being updated. This document is currently being updated.
7. Mobility 7. Mobility
Internet-Draft
7.1 Mobile IP 7.1 Mobile IP
Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] specification defines requirements for the The Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] specification defines requirements for the
following types of nodes: following types of nodes:
- mobile nodes - mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents - home agents
- all IPv6 routers - all IPv6 routers
Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality. Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality.
Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
correspondent nodes. Routers do not need to support route correspondent nodes.
optimization.
Routers SHOULD support mobile IP requirements. Routers do not need to support route optimization or home agent
functionality.
Routers SHOULD support the generic mobile IP requirements.
7.2 Securing Signaling between Mobile Nodes and Home Agents 7.2 Securing Signaling between Mobile Nodes and Home Agents
The security mechanisms described in [MIPv6-HASEC] MUST be supported The security mechanisms described in [MIPv6-HASEC] MUST be supported
by nodes implementing mobile node or home agent functionality by nodes implementing mobile node or home agent functionality
Internet-Draft
specified in Mobile IP [MIPv6]. specified in Mobile IP [MIPv6].
7.3 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification - RFC2473 7.3 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification - RFC2473
Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] MUST be suppored for nodes Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] MUST be supported for nodes
implementing mobile node functionality or Home Agent functionality of implementing mobile node functionality or Home Agent functionality of
Mobile IP [MIPv6]. Mobile IP [MIPv6].
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] MUST be Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] MUST be
supported. supported.
8.2 Security Protocols 8.2 Security Protocols
ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported. ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported.
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms 8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
Internet-Draft
Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of certain transforms and Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of certain transforms and
algorithms, NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96. algorithms, NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96.
The requirements for these are discussed first, and then additional The requirements for these are discussed first, and then additional
algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC, and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed. algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC, and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed.
NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing
integrity service and also for debugging use. integrity service and also for debugging use.
The "ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV" [RFC-2405] SHOULD The "ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV" [RFC-2405] SHOULD
NOT be supported. Security issues related to the use of DES are NOT be supported. Security issues related to the use of DES are
discussed in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. It is still listed as discussed in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. It is still listed as
required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but as it is currently viewed as required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but as it is currently viewed as
an inherently weak algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended an inherently weak algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended
role. role.
The NULL authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be supported within The NULL authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be supported within
ESP. The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within AH and ESP, described in [RFC- ESP. The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within AH and ESP, described in [RFC-
2404] MUST be supported. The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within AH and ESP, 2404] MUST be supported. The use of HMAC-MD5-96 within AH and ESP,
described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. An implementer MUST refer described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. An implementer MUST refer
to Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104]. to Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104].
3DES-CBC does not suffer from the issues related to DES-CBC. 3DES-CBC 3DES-CBC does not suffer from the issues related to DES-CBC. 3DES-CBC
and ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC2451] MAY be supported. AES- and ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC2451] MAY be supported. AES-
Internet-Draft
128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] MUST be supported, as it is expected to 128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] MUST be supported, as it is expected to
be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for
interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs,
however. however.
The "HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec" [ipsec-ciph- The "HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec" [ipsec-ciph-
sha-256] MAY be supported. sha-256] MAY be supported.
8.4 Key Management Methods 8.4 Key Management Methods
Manual keying MUST be supported Manual keying MUST be supported.
IKE [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast IKE [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast
traffic. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or traffic. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or
on-demand creation of SAs is required, automated keying MUST be on-demand creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required,
supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working on the successor to IKE automated keying MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working
[SOI]. Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being on the successor to IKE [SOI]. Key management methods for multicast
worked on by the MSEC WG. traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG.
9. Router Functionality 9. Router-Specific Functionality
This section defines general considerations for IPv6 nodes that act This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
as routers. It is for future study if this document, or a separate act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routin-
document is needed to fully define IPv6 router requirements. specific requirements.
Currently, this section does not discuss routing protocols.
Internet-Draft
9.1 General 9.1 General
9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711 9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711
The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] MUST be supported by nodes that The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] MUST be supported by nodes that
perform 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 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
be supported. be supported.
10. Network Management 10. Network Management
Network Management, MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6
IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
only possibility to control these hosts. possibility to control these hosts.
10.1 MIBs
Internet-Draft 10.1 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)
In a general sense, MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support a At least the following two MIBs SHOULD be supported MIBs SHOULD be
SNMP agent. supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent.
10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB 10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB
Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific
portions of this MIB be supported. portions of this MIB be supported.
10.1.2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) 10.1.2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific
portions of this MIB be supported. portions of this MIB be supported.
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but
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 RFC2460 describes the following: The security considerations in RFC2460 describe the following:
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].
For example, specific protocol documents and applications may require For example, specific protocol documents and applications may require
the use of additional security mechanisms. the use of additional security mechanisms.
Internet-Draft
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 chicken-and-egg problems establishing communications. This is due to chicken-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 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 28
from specific security threats, compared with the same threats in from specific security threats, compared with the same threats in
unicast [MC-THREAT]. unicast [MC-THREAT].
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
Internet-Draft [DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6
Service", Work in Progress.
[ADDRARCHv3] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
[DEFADDR] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC
3484, February 2003.
[DHCPv6] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Work in progress.
[MIPv6] Johnson D. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in [MIPv6] D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6",
IPv6", Work in progress. Work in progress.
[MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli, F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to [MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli, F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling betweenMobile Nodes and Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling betweenMobile Nodes and
Home Agents", Work in Progress. Home Agents", Work in Progress.
[MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version [MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version
2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress. 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress.
[RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC-1886] Thomson, S. et al.and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to [RFC-1886] Thomson, S. et al.and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to
support IP version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995. support IP version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995.
[RFC-1886-BIS] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP [RFC-1886-BIS] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP
version 6" Work In Progress. version 6", Work In Progress.
[RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU [RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU
Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC-2096-BIS] Wasserman, M. (ed), "IP Forwarding Table MIB", Work in [RFC-2096-BIS] Wasserman, M. (ed), "IP Forwarding Table MIB", Work in
Progress. Progress.
Internet-Draft
[RFC-2011-BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the [RFC-2011-BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", Work in progress. Internet Protocol (IP)", Work in progress.
[RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC: [RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC:
Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997. February 1997.
[RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
1997.
[RFC-2373] Hinden, R. and Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
Internet-Draft
[RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for [RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for
the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. the 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", RFC 2402, November 1998. Header", 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.
skipping to change at page 16, line 45 skipping to change at page 16, line 4
[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
Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998. Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.
[RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver- [RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver-
sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. sion 6 (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
Internet-Draft
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December Discovery 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
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462. Autoconfiguration", 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 Pro-
tocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998. tocol 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
Internet-Draft
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 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. in 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
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October Listener 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.
[RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for [RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC
3041, January 2001. 3041, January 2001.
[RFC-3152] Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", RFC 3152, August [RFC-3152] Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", RFC 3152, August
2001. 2001.
[RFC-3315] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver- [RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver-
sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System
(DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.
[RFC-3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC
3484, February 2003.
[RFC-3513] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
12.2 Non-Normative 12.2 Non-Normative
[ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast" [ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast"
Work in Progress. Work in Progress.
[DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of [DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of
Internet-Draft
DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4, Jan DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4, Jan
1991. 1991.
[DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA 2000. [DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA 2000.
[DESINT] Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without [DESINT] Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without
Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF, Danvers, Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF, Danvers,
MA, April 1995. MA, April 1995.
[MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu- [MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu-
rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sympo- rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sympo-
sium on Network and Distributed System Security", Febru- sium on Network and Distributed System Security", Febru-
ary 1995, pp.2-16. ary 1995, pp.2-16.
[SOI] C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Progress. [SOI] C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Progress.
[RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, [RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
August 1980. August 1980.
Internet-Draft
[RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili- [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili-
ties", RFC 1034, November 1987. ties", RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147, [RFC-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147,
May 1997. May 1997.
[RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet [RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998. Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over [RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over
skipping to change at page 18, line 32 skipping to change at page 17, line 51
[RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal [RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999. IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.
[RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder, [RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder,
"Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses",
RFC2851, June 2000. RFC2851, June 2000.
[RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for [RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms 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 Infor- [RFC-3569] S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific
mation Base for the Multicast Listener Discovery Proto- Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
col", RFC3019, January 2001.
[IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home [IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
Internet-Draft
Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002. Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002.
[SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "SSM Architecture", Work in Pro-
gress.
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]
Marc Blanchet Marc Blanchet
[marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] [marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca]
Samita Chakrabarti Samita Chakrabarti
[samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com] [samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com]
Alain Durand Alain Durand
[alain.durand@sun.com] [alain.durand@sun.com]
Internet-Draft
Gerard Gastaud Gerard Gastaud
[gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr] [gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr]
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
[itojun@iijlab.net] [itojun@iijlab.net]
Atsushi Inoue Atsushi Inoue
[inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] [inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
Masahiro Ishiyama Masahiro Ishiyama
[masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] [masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
John Loughney John Loughney
[john.loughney@nokia.com] [john.loughney@nokia.com]
Okabe Nobuo
[nov@tahi.org]
Rajiv Raghunarayan Rajiv Raghunarayan
[raraghun@cisco.com] [raraghun@cisco.com]
Shoichi Sakane Shoichi Sakane
[shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com] [shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com]
Dave Thaler Dave Thaler
[dthaler@windows.microsoft.com] [dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]
Internet-Draft
Juha Wiljakka Juha Wiljakka
[juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com] [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car- The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car-
penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten,
Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments. 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 Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the
IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com) or to: IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com) or to:
John Loughney John Loughney
Nokia Research Center Nokia Research Center
Itmerenkatu 11-13 Itamerenkatu 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
Internet-Draft
Notices Notices
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to per- intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to per-
tain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this tain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might document or the extent to which any license under such rights might
or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made
any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards- procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
 End of changes. 

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