--- 1/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-05.txt 2006-02-05 00:02:52.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt 2006-02-05 00:02:52.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) Internet-Draft Nokia - August 25, 2003 + October 25, 2003 -Expires: February 25, 2004 +Expires: April 24, 2004 IPv6 Node Requirements - draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-05.txt + draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.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. @@ -83,42 +83,42 @@ 12.1 Normative 12.2 Non-Normative 13. Authors and Acknowledgements 14. Editor's Address Notices Internet-Draft 1. Introduction - The goal of this document is to define the set of functionality - required for an IPv6 node; the functionality common to both hosts and - routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or additional - features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to implement the - mandatory requirements listed in this document. + The goal of this document is to define the common functionality + required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will + implement optional or additional 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 references RFCs for this purpose. In case of any conflicting text, this document takes less precedence than the normative RFCs, unless additional clarifying text is included in this document. 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]. + others. [RFC-793]. 1.1 Requirement Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119]. 1.2 Scope of this Document IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be @@ -178,48 +178,47 @@ NS Neighbor Solicitation NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection PPP Point-to-Point Protocol PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit SVC Switched Virtual Circuit - ULP Upper Layer Protocol +3. Sub-IP Layer Internet-Draft -3. Sub-IP Layer - An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is sending packets. By definition, these specifications are required based upon what layer-2 is used. In general, it is reasonable to be a conformant IPv6 node and NOT support some legacy interfaces. As IPv6 is run over 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 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] MUST - be supported for nodes supporting Ethernet interfaces. + Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement + Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464]. 3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472 - IPv6 over PPP [RFC-2472] MUST be supported for nodes that use PPP. + Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP [RFC- + 2472]. 3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] MUST be supported for nodes - supporting ATM interfaces. Additionally, the specification states: + Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM + Networks [RFC-2492]. Additionally, RFC 2492 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. 4. IP Layer 4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460 The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This @@ -230,33 +229,33 @@ The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. Nodes 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 a limitation to the payload size of layer 4 protocols. The capability of being a final destination MUST be supported, + whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination MAY be Internet-Draft - whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination 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] + Security Payload. [RFC-2460] 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 for IPv6 - RFC2461 Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC 2461 states: "Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating @@ -274,64 +273,64 @@ Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows: Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for implementations. However, an implementation MAY support disabling this 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 MUST be supported for implementations. However, the + Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. However, an implementation MAY support the option of disabling this function. Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths between routers. 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). Internet-Draft - MUST respond to it (i.e. send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement). - - Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported (RFC2462 section 5.4 - specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses). + Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting + link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take + place on all unicast addresses). A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations, but it MAY support a configuration option to disable this functionality. Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for - host implementations. However, the implementation MAY support the + host implementations. However, an implementation MAY support the option of disabling this function. The ability to understand specific - Router Advertisement optionss is dependent on supporting the + Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the specification where the RA is specified. Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). - Redirect functionionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a - router, Redirect functionionality MUST be supported. + Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router, + Redirect functionionality MUST be supported. 4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size 4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. It is expected that most implementations will indeed support this, although the possible exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and reassembly. 4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675 - IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported. + IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] MAY be supported. 4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463 ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported. 4.5 Addressing Currently, there is discussion on support for site-local addressing. 4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513 @@ -339,21 +338,21 @@ The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported. 4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462 Internet-Draft IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462]. This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts. Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses - as described in this specification. + as described in RFC 2460 [RFC-2460]. 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 @@ -366,191 +365,197 @@ Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041] SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be configurable on a connection basis within each application when available. It is noted that a number of applications do not work with addresses generated with this method, while other applications work quite well with them. 4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484 - 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 - more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured. - - If supported, the rules specified in the document MUST be - 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. + The the rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 + [RFC-3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 + nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses. 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. 4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCP [RFC-3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol, see section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support. For nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration, the node may be unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link- local addresses when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' + flag (Managed address configuration) set and which contains no + prefixes advertised for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see Internet-Draft - flag (Managed address configuration) set and which contains no - prefixes advertised for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 - If an application is going join any-source multicast, it SHOULD - support MLDv1. If it is going to support Source-Specific Multicast, - it MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2] and conform to the Source-Specific + If an application is going to join any-source multicast group + addresses, it SHOULD implement MLDv1. When MLD is used, the rules in + "Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) + Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be followed. + + If an application is going to support Source-Specific Multicast, it + MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2] and conform to the Source-Specific Multicast overview document [RFC3569]; refer to Source-Specific Multicast architecture document for details [SSMARCH]. 5. Transport Layer and DNS 5.1 Transport Layer 5.1.1 TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2147 This specification MUST be supported if 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 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 - names. Note that RFC 1886 is currently being updated [RFC-1886-BIS]. + names. Note that RFC 1886 is currently being updated [RFC-1886BIS]. + + All nodes, that need to resolve names, SHOULD implement stub-resolver + [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with support for: + + - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-1886BIS]; + - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa [RFC-3152]; + - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 + octets. + + Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extentions + [DNSSEC-INTRO], [DNSSEC-REC] and [DNSSEC-PROT]. + + Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and + DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363]. + + Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's" [RFC-2732] MUST be + supported if applications on the node use URL's. 5.2.2 Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's - RFC2732 +Internet-Draft + RFC 2732 MUST be supported if applications on the node use URL's. 5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be unable to 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. 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 section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router, IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. -5.3.2 Other stateful configuration +5.3.2 Other Stateful Configuration DHCP provides the ability to provide other configuration information to the node. An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be unable to obtain other configuration information such as 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 ("Other stateful configuration") is set. - 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 - 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 - that do not implement DHCP, the 'O' flag of a Router Advertisement - can be ignored. Furthermore, in the absence of a router, this type - of node is not required to initiate DHCP. + For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those + nodes MUST use DHCP 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, hosts that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use + DHCP. For IPv6 Nodes that do not implement DHCP, the 'O' flag of a + Router Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in the absence of + a router, these types of node are 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. +Internet-Draft + 6. IPv4 Support and Transition IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4. 6.1 Transition Mechanisms IPv6 nodes SHOULD use native addressing instead of transition-based addressing (according to the algorithms defined in RFC 3484). 6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893 MUST be supported. - This document is currently being updated. - -7. Mobility - -Internet-Draft + RFC 2893 is currently being updated. -7.1 Mobile IP +7. Mobile IP The Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] specification defines requirements for the following types of nodes: - mobile nodes - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization - home agents - all IPv6 routers - Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality. + Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5 + of [MIPv6], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-2473] + and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC]. Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for - correspondent nodes. - - 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 - - The security mechanisms described in [MIPv6-HASEC] MUST be supported - by nodes implementing mobile node or home agent functionality - specified in Mobile IP [MIPv6]. - - 7.3 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification - RFC2473 + correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [MIPv6]. - Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] MUST be supported for nodes - implementing mobile node functionality or Home Agent functionality of - Mobile IP [MIPv6]. + Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for + all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [MIPv6]. Routers MAY + support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of + [MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC]. 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] MUST be supported. +Internet-Draft + 8.2 Security Protocols ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported. 8.3 Transforms and Algorithms -Internet-Draft - Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of certain transforms and algorithms, NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96. The requirements for these are discussed first, and then additional algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC, and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed. NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing integrity service and also for debugging use. The "ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV" [RFC-2405] SHOULD NOT be supported. Security issues related to the use of DES are @@ -559,152 +564,142 @@ an inherently weak algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended role. 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- 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 to Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104]. 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 [RFC-2451] MAY be supported. AES- 128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] MUST be supported, as it is expected to be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for - interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, - however. + interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, but + is expected to become required in the future. The "HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec" [ipsec-ciph- sha-256] MAY be supported. 8.4 Key Management Methods Manual keying MUST be supported. IKE [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast traffic. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working - on the successor to IKE [SOI]. Key management methods for multicast + on the successor to IKE [IKE2]. Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG. +Internet-Draft + 9. Router-Specific Functionality This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that - act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routin- + act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- specific requirements. -Internet-Draft - 9.1 General 9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711 - 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 - router). + The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by- + Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., + RSVP [RFC-2205], or MLD [RFC-2710]). The Router Alert option will + need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are + implemented. See Section 4.6. 9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST be supported. 10. Network Management Network Management 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 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) - At least the following two MIBs SHOULD be supported MIBs SHOULD be - supported by nodes that support an SNMP agent. + The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported MIBs by nodes that support + an SNMP agent. 10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB - Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific - portions of this MIB be supported. + Support for this MIB [RFC-2096BIS] does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 + specific portions of this MIB be supported. 10.1.2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) - Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific - portions of this MIB be supported. + Support for this MIB [RFC-2011BIS] does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 + specific portions of this MIB be supported. 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 + +Internet-Draft + Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read. The security considerations in RFC2460 describe the following: The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401]. - For example, specific protocol documents and applications may require - the use of additional security mechanisms. - -Internet-Draft - - 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 chicken-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. - - The use of wide-area multicast communications has an increased risk - from specific security threats, compared with the same threats in - unicast [MC-THREAT]. - - An implementer should also consider the analysis of anycast - [ANYCAST]. - 12. References 12.1 Normative [DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 - Service", Work in Progress. + Service", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt, Work + in Progress. - [MIPv6] D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6", - Work in progress. + [MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support + in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work in + progress. - [MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli, F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to - Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes and - Home Agents", Work in Progress. + [MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec + to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes + and Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec- + 06.txt, Work in Progress. [MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version - 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress. + 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-07.txt, Work in + Progress. [RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC-1886] Thomson, S. et al.and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to support IP version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995. - [RFC-1886-BIS] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP - version 6", Work In Progress. + [RFC-1886BIS] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP + version 6", draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc1886bis-03.txt, Work + In Progress. [RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. - [RFC-2096-BIS] Wasserman, M. (ed), "IP Forwarding Table MIB", Work in + [RFC-2096BIS] Haberman, B. and Wasserman, M., "IP Forwarding Table + MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt, Work in Progress. -Internet-Draft + [RFC-2011BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the + Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011- + update-03.txt, Work in progress. - [RFC-2011-BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the - Internet Protocol (IP)", Work in progress. +Internet-Draft [RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997. [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. @@ -737,37 +732,39 @@ [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", RFC 2451, November 1998. [RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver- sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor - -Internet-Draft - Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. +Internet-Draft + [RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462. [RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet Pro- tocol 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. + in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. Xxx + add + + [RFC-2671] [RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999. [RFC-2711] Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert Option", RFC 2711, October 1999. [RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC @@ -782,54 +779,83 @@ [RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver- sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (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 - - [ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast" - Work in Progress. + [RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multi- + cast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, + September 2003. - [DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of +12.2 Non-Normative Internet-Draft + [ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast", + draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt, Work in + Progress. + + [DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4, Jan 1991. [DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA 2000. [DESINT] Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF, Danvers, MA, April 1995. + [DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, + S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements" draft- + ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-06.txt, Work in Progress. + + [DNSSEC-REC] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, + S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", + draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-04.txt, Work in Pro- + gress. + + [DNSSEC-PROT] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, + S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Exten- + sions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-02.txt, Work in + Progress. + + [IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto- + col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-10.txt, Work in Progress. + + [IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home + Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security- + 03.txt, Work in Progress, March 2002. + [MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu- rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sympo- sium on Network and Distributed System Security", Febru- ary 1995, pp.2-16. - [SOI] C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Progress. - [RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, August 1980. [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili- ties", RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147, May 1997. +Internet-Draft + + [RFC-2205] Braden, B. (ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and + S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", RFC + 2205, September 1997. + [RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998. [RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo- grams", RFC 2675, August 1999. [RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal @@ -838,48 +864,44 @@ [RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC2851, June 2000. [RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000. [RFC-3569] S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. - [IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home - -Internet-Draft - - Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002. - - [SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "SSM Architecture", Work in Pro- - gress. + [SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", + draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03.txt, Work in Progress. 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] +Internet-Draft + 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 @@ -887,22 +909,20 @@ Rajiv Raghunarayan [raraghun@cisco.com] Shoichi Sakane [shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com] Dave Thaler [dthaler@windows.microsoft.com] -Internet-Draft - Juha Wiljakka [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com] The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car- penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments. 14. Editor's Contact Information Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the @@ -916,20 +936,23 @@ Phone: +358 50 483 6242 Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com Notices The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to per- tain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might + +Internet-Draft + 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 procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards- related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.