draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt 
IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
October 25, 2003 December 9, 2003
Expires: April 24, 2004 Expires: June 8, 2004
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.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 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
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.
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 Jon 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
others. [RFC-793]. others [RFC-793].
1.1 Requirement Language 1.1 Requirement Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119].
1.2 Scope of this Document 1.2 Scope of this Document
IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be
skipping to change at page 5, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
3. Sub-IP Layer 3. Sub-IP Layer
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
sending packets. By definition, these specifications are required specifications. Which link-layer specifications are included will
based upon what layer-2 is used. In general, it is reasonable to be depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available
a conformant IPv6 node and NOT support some legacy interfaces. on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support
IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others.
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
Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464]. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464].
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460 4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460
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 send, receive and process fragment
does not implement path MTU discovery it may not need to send headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
fragment headers. However, nodes that do not implement transmission sending and receving IPv6 packets; forwarding functionality MAY be
of fragment headers need to impose a limitation to the payload size supported
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
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.
Internet-Draft
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. [RFC-2460] Security Payload. [RFC-2460]
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be 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 noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers
and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused by them. and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused by them.
4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 37
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.
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, an Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. Neighbor
implementation MAY support the option of disabling this function. Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths
between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths
Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all between routers. However, when a node receives a unicast Neighbor
paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST
paths between routers. However, when a node receives a unicast respond to it (i.e. send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement).
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
Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting
link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take
place on all unicast addresses). place on all unicast addresses).
A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations, but A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations.
it MAY support a configuration option to disable this functionality.
Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
host implementations. However, an implementation MAY support the
option of disabling this function. The ability to understand specific Internet-Draft
Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the
specification where the RA is specified. host implementations. The ability to understand specific Router
Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the 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 functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router, Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
Redirect functionionality MUST be supported. Redirect functionality 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. It is expected that Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. It is expected that
most implementations will indeed support this, although the possible most implementations will indeed support this, although the possible
exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not
justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet
fragmentation and reassembly. fragmentation and reassembly.
skipping to change at page 7, line 47 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675 4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] MAY be supported. IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] 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 support for site-local addressing.
4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513 4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported. The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported.
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 RFC 2460 [RFC-2460]. as described in RFC 2462 [RFC-2462].
From 2462: From 2462:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
Internet-Draft
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface. them to an interface.
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) 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
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 - RFC3484 4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484
The the rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC-
[RFC-3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes
nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses. A node needs to will need to deal with multiple addresses.
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 4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCP [RFC-3315] Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 [RFC-
is the standard stateful address configuration protocol, see section 3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see
5.3 for DHCPv6 support. section 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'
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). Additionally, such nodes 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.
Internet-Draft 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
section 4.5.2). Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
[MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications, which only need
support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement
MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications, which need
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node
4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 Internet-Draft
If an application is going to join any-source multicast group MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2].
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 When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the
MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2] and conform to the Source-Specific Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be
Multicast overview document [RFC3569]; refer to Source-Specific followed.
Multicast architecture document for details [SSMARCH].
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].
as it refers to an obsoleted document.
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-3152], [RFC-3363]
and [RFC-3363] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve and [RFC-1886] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve
names. Note that RFC 1886 is currently being updated [RFC-1886BIS]. names. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub-
resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with
All nodes, that need to resolve names, SHOULD implement stub-resolver support for:
[RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-1886BIS]; - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596];
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa [RFC-3152]; - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152];
- EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512
octets. octets.
Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extentions Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extentions
[DNSSEC-INTRO], [DNSSEC-REC] and [DNSSEC-PROT]. [DNSSEC-INTRO], [DNSSEC-REC] and [DNSSEC-PROT].
Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363]. 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 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. 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 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 Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP
unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
when it is connected to a link over which it receives a router receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as described
advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed address configuration) set in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. In addition, in the absence of a
and which contains no prefixes advertised for Stateless Address router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment MUST
Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). In this situation, the IPv6 initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration
Node will be unable to communicate with other off-link nodes unless a information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6
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
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 Internet-Draft
DHCP provides the ability to provide other configuration information nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M'
to the node. An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of flag in Router Advertisements.
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 (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those 5.3.2 Other Configuration Information
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 Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration
obtain configuration information. A node that uses stateless DHCP information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon
must have obtained its IPv6 addresses through some other mechanism, receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described
typically stateless address autoconfiguration. in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP
for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router
Advertisements.
Internet-Draft An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] to
obtain other configuration information.
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 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 6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then RFC2893
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
RFC 2893 is currently being updated. RFC 2893 is currently being updated.
7. Mobile IP 7. Mobile IP
The 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
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 11, line 4
Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5 Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5
of [MIPv6], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-2473] of [MIPv6], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-2473]
and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC]. and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC].
Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [MIPv6]. correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [MIPv6].
Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for
all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [MIPv6]. Routers MAY all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [MIPv6]. Routers MAY
support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of
Internet-Draft
[MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC]. [MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC].
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
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.
Internet-Draft
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
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.
skipping to change at page 12, line 36 skipping to change at page 11, line 46
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 [RFC-2451] 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 CBC Cipher Algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST be supported, as it is expected
be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for to be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for
interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, but interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, but
is expected to become required in the future. 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 8.4 Key Management Methods
Manual keying MUST be supported. Manual keying MUST be supported.
Internet-Draft
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 Security Associations (SAs) is required, on-demand creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required,
automated keying MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working automated keying MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working
on the successor to IKE [IKE2]. 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. traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG.
Internet-Draft
9. Router-Specific Functionality 9. Router-Specific Functionality
This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing-
specific requirements. specific requirements.
9.1 General 9.1 General
9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711 9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711
skipping to change at page 13, line 32 skipping to change at page 12, line 39
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 IPv6 Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6
nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
possibility to control these hosts. possibility to control these nodes.
10.1 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 10.1 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)
The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported MIBs by nodes that support The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
an SNMP agent. SNMP agent.
10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB 10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB
Support for this MIB [RFC-2096BIS] does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-2096BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes
specific portions of this MIB be supported. that support an SNMP agent.
Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific
portions of this MIB be supported.
Internet-Draft
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 [RFC-2011BIS] does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 IP MIB [RFC-2011BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
specific portions of this MIB be supported. SNMP agent.
Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific
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
Internet-Draft
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 describe 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].
12. References 12. References
12.1 Normative 12.1 Normative
skipping to change at page 14, line 38 skipping to change at page 13, line 50
and Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec- and Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec-
06.txt, Work in Progress. 06.txt, 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", draft-vida-mld-v2-07.txt, Work in 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-07.txt, Work in
Progress. 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
support IP version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995.
[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 [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-2096BIS] Haberman, B. and Wasserman, M., "IP Forwarding Table [RFC-2096BIS] Haberman, B. and Wasserman, M., "IP Forwarding Table
MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt, Work in MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt, Work in
Internet-Draft
Progress. Progress.
[RFC-2011BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the [RFC-2011BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011- Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-
update-03.txt, Work in progress. update-03.txt, Work in progress.
Internet-Draft
[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 Indicate [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 48 skipping to change at page 14, line 54
[RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key [RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key
Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998. Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm [RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm
and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998. and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.
[RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher [RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
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,
sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
Internet-Draft
Version 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
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December
1998. 1998.
Internet-Draft
[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
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
skipping to change at page 16, line 49 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
[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 [RFC-3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC
3484, February 2003. 3484, February 2003.
[RFC-3513] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC-3513] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
Internet-Draft
[RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multi- [RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multi-
cast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, cast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
September 2003. September 2003.
12.2 Non-Normative [RFC-3596] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP
version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003.
Internet-Draft [RFC-3602] S. Frankel, "The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use
with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003.
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",
draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt, Work in draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt, Work in
Progress. Progress.
[DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of [DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of
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.
[DHCPv6-SL] Droms, R., "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Ser-
vice", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt, Work in
Progress.
[DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, [DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose,
S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements" draft- S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements" draft-
ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-06.txt, Work in Progress. ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-06.txt, Work in Progress.
[DNSSEC-REC] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, [DNSSEC-REC] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose,
S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-04.txt, Work in Pro- draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-04.txt, Work in Pro-
gress. gress.
[DNSSEC-PROT] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, [DNSSEC-PROT] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose,
S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Exten- S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Exten-
sions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-02.txt, Work in sions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-02.txt, Work in
Progress. Progress.
[IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto- [IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto-
col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-10.txt, Work in Progress. col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-10.txt, Work in Progress.
[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", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security- Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-
03.txt, Work in Progress, March 2002. 03.txt, Work in Progress, March 2002.
[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.
[RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, [RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
August 1980. August 1980.
[RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili- [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and 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.
Internet-Draft
[RFC-2205] Braden, B. (ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and [RFC-2205] Braden, B. (ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and
S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", RFC S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", RFC
2205, September 1997. 2205, September 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
ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.
skipping to change at page 18, line 38 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000. IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.
[RFC-3569] S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific [RFC-3569] S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
[SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", [SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP",
draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03.txt, Work in Progress. draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03.txt, Work in Progress.
13. Authors and Acknowledgements 13. Authors and Acknowledgements
Internet-Draft
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]
Gerard Gastaud Gerard Gastaud
[gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr] [gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr]
Internet-Draft
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
skipping to change at page 19, line 38 skipping to change at page 19, line 4
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
Internet-Draft
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
Itamerenkatu 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
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
Internet-Draft
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-
related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of
rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses
to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a 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 general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights
by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from
the IETF Secretariat. the IETF Secretariat.
 End of changes. 

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