draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt 
IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
December 9, 2003 January 14, 2004
Expires: June 8, 2004 Expires: July 14, 2004
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.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 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments. deployments.
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of this Document 1.1 Requirement Language
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups 1.2 Scope of this Document
1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
3. Sub-IP Layer 3. Sub-IP Layer
3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks 3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464
3.2 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP 3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472
3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks 3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492
4. IP Layer 4. IP Layer
4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460 4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460
4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size 4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463 4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463
4.5 Addressing 4.5 Addressing
4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
5. Transport and DNS 5. Transport and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer 5.1 Transport Layer
5.2 DNS 5.2 DNS
5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
6. IPv4 Support and Transition 6. IPv4 Support and Transition
6.1 Transition Mechanisms 6.1 Transition Mechanisms
7. Mobility 7. Mobility
7.1 Mobile IP
7.2 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification - RFC2473
8. Security 8. Security
8.1 Basic Architecture 8.1 Basic Architecture
8.2 Security Protocols 8.2 Security Protocols
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms 8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
8.4 Key Management Methods 8.4 Key Management Methods
9. Router Functionality 9. Router Functionality
9.1 General 9.1 General
10. Network Management 10. Network Management
10.1 MIBs 10.1 MIBs
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 48
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
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 1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes
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 Internet-Draft
- a device that implements IPv6 - a device that implements IPv6
skipping to change at page 7, line 22 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
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 functionality 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] SHOULD be supported, though minimal
most implementations will indeed support this, although the possible implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets.
exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and
justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet reassembly.
fragmentation and reassembly.
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
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 54
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 2462 [RFC-2462]. 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
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
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
skipping to change at page 8, line 37 skipping to change at page 8, line 36
The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC- The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC-
3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes 3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes
will need to deal with multiple addresses. will need to deal with multiple addresses.
4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 [RFC- Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 [RFC-
3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see 3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see
section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support. section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support.
For nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration, Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be
the node may be unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link- unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses
local addresses when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed
flag (Managed address configuration) set and which contains no address configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised
prefixes advertised for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2).
section 4.5.2). Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration
other configuration information such as the addresses of DNS servers information such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected
when it is connected to a link over which the node receives a router to a link over which the node receives a router advertisement in
advertisement in which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") is set.
is set.
4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
[MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications, which only need [MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications, which only need
support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement
MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications, which need MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications, which need
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node
MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2].
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2].
When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be
followed. followed.
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]. [RFC-2675].
5.2 DNS 5.2 DNS
DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363] DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363]
and [RFC-1886] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve and [RFC-3596] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve
names. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub- names. All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub-
resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with
support for: support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596]; - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596];
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [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
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 54
5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration
Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP
to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as described receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as described
in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. In addition, in the absence of a in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. In addition, in the absence of a
router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment MUST router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment MUST
initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration
information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6
nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M'
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M'
flag in Router Advertisements. flag in Router Advertisements.
5.3.2 Other Configuration Information 5.3.2 Other Configuration Information
Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration
information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described
in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP 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 for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router
Advertisements. Advertisements.
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 54
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
[MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC].
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
[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.
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. RFC-2401 is being updated by the IPsec Working Group.
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.
RFC- 2406 and RFC 2402 are being updated by the IPsec Working Group.
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.
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.
skipping to change at page 11, line 51 skipping to change at page 11, line 51
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-
CBC Cipher Algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST be supported, as it is expected CBC Cipher Algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST be supported, as it is expected
to 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.
In addition to the above requirements, "Cryptographic Algorithm
Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the
current set of mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH as
Internet-Draft
well as specifying algorithms that should be implemented because they
may be promoted to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED
that IPv6 nodes conform to the requirements in this document.
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.
"Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the Internet Key Exchange
Version 2" [IKEv2ALGO] defines the current set of mandatory to
implement algorithms for use of IKEv2 as well as specifying
algorithms that should be implemented because they made be promoted
to mandatory at some future time. It is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 nodes
implementing IKEv2 conform to the requirements in this
document.
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 12, line 38 skipping to change at page 13, line 4
implemented. See Section 4.6. implemented. See Section 4.6.
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
Internet-Draft
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 nodes. 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 by nodes that support an The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent. SNMP agent.
10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB 10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB
IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-2096BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-2096BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes
that support an SNMP agent. 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)
IP MIB [RFC-2011BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an IP MIB [RFC-2011BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent. 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
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
[CRYPTREQ] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementa-
tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec-
esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 2004.
[IKEv2ALGO] J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the
Internet Key Exchange Version 2", draft-ietf-ipsec-
ikev2-algorithms-04.txt, Work in Progress.
[DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 [DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6
Service", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt, Work Service", draft- ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-00.txt,
in Progress. Work in Progress.
[MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support [MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work in in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work in
Internet-Draft
progress. progress.
[MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec [MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec
to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes
and Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec- and Home Agents", draft-ietf- mobileip-mipv6-ha-
06.txt, Work in Progress. ipsec-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-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-07.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-07.txt, 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 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 14, line 36 skipping to change at page 15, line 4
[RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within [RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998. ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
[RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1 [RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1
within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[RFC-2405] Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher [RFC-2405] Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998. Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.
[RFC-2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security [RFC-2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security
Internet-Draft
Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.
[RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of [RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998. Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
[RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner, [RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and Turner,
J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management
Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998. Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.
[RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key [RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key
Exchange (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, [RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver-
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.
[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
in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. Xxx in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. Xxx
add add
[RFC-2671] [RFC-2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
2671, August 1999.
[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.
Internet-Draft
[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 [RFC-3315] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 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 [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.
[RFC-3596] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP [RFC-3596] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP
version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003. version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003.
[RFC-3602] S. Frankel, "The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use [RFC-3602] S. Frankel, "The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use
with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003. with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003.
skipping to change at page 16, line 35 skipping to change at page 17, line 4
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- [DHCPv6-SL] Droms, R., "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Ser-
vice", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt, Work in vice", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt, Work in
Internet-Draft
Progress. 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
Progress. in 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.
skipping to change at page 17, line 34 skipping to change at page 17, line 54
[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.
[RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo- [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6
grams", RFC 2675, August 1999.
Internet-Draft
Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999.
[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", RFC
RFC 2851, June 2000. 2851, 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-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]
skipping to change at page 18, line 36 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
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]
Internet-Draft
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]
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 (ipv6@ietf.org) or to:
Internet-Draft
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
skipping to change at page 19, line 36 skipping to change at page 20, line 4
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.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
Internet-Draft
rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director. Director.
 End of changes. 

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