draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-09.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-10.txt 
IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
May 22, 2004 August 12, 2004
Expires: November 21, 2004 Expires: February 12, 2005
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-09.txt draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-10.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
RFC 3668. with RFC 3668.
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.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
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
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations
deployments. and deployments.
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1 Requirement Language 1.1 Requirement Language
1.2 Scope of this Document 1.2 Scope of this Document
1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes 1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
skipping to change at page 3, line 29 skipping to change at page 3, line 29
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 Jon 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
others [RFC-793]. from 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
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119]. this 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
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.
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 13
3. Sub-IP Layer 3. Sub-IP Layer
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
specifications. Which link-layer specifications are included will specifications. Which link-layer specifications are included will
depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available
on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support on the system. It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support
IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others. 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
specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major new specifications will be issued. This section highlights some
layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete. major 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].
3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472 3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472
Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP [RFC- Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP [RFC-
2472]. 2472].
skipping to change at page 6, line 8 skipping to change at page 6, line 8
headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
sending and receving IPv6 packets; forwarding functionality MAY be sending and receving IPv6 packets; forwarding functionality MAY be
supported supported
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers. headers.
Internet-Draft 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
Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating 0), Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and
Security Payload. [RFC-2460] Encapsulating 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
Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC 2461 states: Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC 2461 states:
"Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating "Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating
skipping to change at page 6, line 48 skipping to change at page 6, line 48
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. Neighbor Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. Neighbor
Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths
between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths
between routers. However, when a node receives a unicast Neighbor between routers. However, when a node receives a unicast Neighbor
Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST
respond to it (i.e. send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement). respond to it (i.e. send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement).
Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links
link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD MUST take supporting link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD
place on all unicast addresses). MUST take place on all unicast addresses).
A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations. A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations.
Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
host implementations. The ability to understand specific Router host implementations. The ability to understand specific Router
Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the specification Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the specification
where the RA is specified. 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
for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). required 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] SHOULD be supported, though minimal Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal
implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets. implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large
The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and packets. 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
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 as
updated by [DEP-SL].
4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462 4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462
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 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
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041] Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-
SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be 3041] 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 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.
skipping to change at page 8, line 41 skipping to change at page 8, line 42
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.
Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be
unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses
when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed
address configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised address configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised
for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2).
Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other
information such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected configuration information such as the addresses of DNS servers when
to a link over which the node receives a router advertisement in it is connected to a link over which the node receives a router
which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") is set. advertisement in which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration")
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.
4.7 Special header fields
If a node supports the Traffic Class field, it MUST do so in
accordance with [RFC-2474], [RFC-3168], or both. Hosts that do not
support this field MUST set it to zero when sending packets. Routers
that do not support this field MUST NOT change its value when
forwarding packets.
If a node supports the Flow Label field, it MUST do so in accordance
with [RFC-3697]. Hosts that do not support this field MUST set it to
zero when sending packets. Routers that do not support this field
MUST NOT change its value when forwarding packets.
5. DNS and DHCP 5. DNS and DHCP
5.1 DNS 5.1 DNS
DNS is described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363] DNS is described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363]
and [RFC-3596]. Not all nodes will need to resolve names, and those and [RFC-3596]. Not all nodes will need to resolve names, and those
that will never need to resolve DNS names do not need to implement that will never need to resolve DNS names do not need to implement
resolver functionality. However, the ability to resolve names is a resolver functionality. However, the ability to resolve names is a
basic infrastructure capability that applications rely on and basic infrastructure capability that applications rely on and
generally needs to be supported. All nodes that need to resolve generally needs to be supported. All nodes that need to resolve
names SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC names SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in
1034 section 5.3.1 with support for: RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with 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
[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].
5.2 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315 5.2 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315
5.2.1 Managed Address Configuration 5.2.1 Managed Address Configuration
Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP The method by which IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment
to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as described Internet-Draft
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 can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set is described
information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.
nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M'
flag in Router Advertisements. In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 Nodes that use
DHCP for address assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6
addresses and other configuration 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' flag in Router
Advertisements.
5.2.2 Other Configuration Information 5.2.2 Other Configuration Information
The method by which IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other
configuration information can obtain other configuration information
upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set is
described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.
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
in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do
not use DHCP for other configuration information can ignore the 'O'
Internet-Draft flag in Router Advertisements.
for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router
Advertisements.
An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] to An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] to
obtain other configuration information. obtain other configuration information.
5.3.3 Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments
Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) are expected to determine their default router information
and on-link prefix information from received Router Advertisements.
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
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 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
Internet-Draft
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
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents - home agents
- all IPv6 routers - all IPv6 routers
Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality 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]
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
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]. [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
Internet-Draft
supported. RFC-2401 is being updated by the IPsec Working Group. 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. 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 transforms and algorithms
algorithms, NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96. for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96,
The requirements for these are discussed first, and then additional and HMAC-MD5-96. However, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed. Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the current set of
mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies
algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be
promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes SHOULD
conform to the requirements in [CRYPTREQ] as well as the
requirements specified below.
NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
integrity service and also for debugging use.
The "ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV" [RFC-2405] SHOULD Internet-Draft
NOT be supported. Security issues related to the use of DES are
discussed in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. It is still listed as
required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but as it is currently viewed as
an inherently weak algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended
role.
The NULL authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be supported within for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] and the NULL
ESP. The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within AH and ESP, described in [RFC- authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be provided to maintain
2404] MUST be supported. The use of HMAC-MD5-96 within AH and ESP, consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However,
described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. An implementer MUST refer while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT
to Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104]. both be NULL. The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for
debugging.
3DES-CBC does not suffer from the issues related to DES-CBC. 3DES-CBC The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2405] SHOULD NOT be supported
and ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC-2451] MAY be supported. AES- within ESP. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed
CBC Cipher Algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST be supported, as it is expected in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. DES-CBC is still listed as
to be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will
interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs, but be published soon. DES provides 56 bits of protection, which is no
is expected to become required in the future. longer considered sufficient.
In addition to the above requirements, "Cryptographic Algorithm The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC-2404] within AH and ESP MUST
Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the be supported. The use of HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC-2403] within AH
current set of mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH as and ESP MAY also be supported.
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.
The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2451] does not suffer from
the same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm
within ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability.
The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST also be supported
within
ESP. AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and
efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the
current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the
future.
8.4 Key Management Methods 8.4 Key Management Methods
Manual keying MUST be supported. An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the
security key and SPI. The SPI configuration is needed in order to
delineate between multiple keys.
Internet-Draft Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management
systems include IKEv1 [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409], IKEv2
[IKEv2] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include key management
functions.
IKE [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand
traffic. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required,
on- demand creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying MUST be supported.
automated keying MUST be supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working
on the successor to IKE [IKE2]. Key management methods for multicast
traffic are also being worked on by the MSEC WG.
"Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the Internet Key Exchange Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked
Version 2" [IKEv2ALGO] defines the current set of mandatory to on by the MSEC WG.
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
Internet-Draft
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
The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by- 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., Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g.,
RSVP [RFC- 2205], or MLD [RFC-2710]). The Router Alert option will RSVP [RFC- 2205], or MLD [RFC-2710]). The Router Alert option will
need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are
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
be supported. MUST 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
nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the
possibility to control these nodes. only 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
Internet-Draft
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.
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.
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:
Internet-Draft
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 [CRYPTREQ] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementa-
Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH", tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec-
draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 2004.
2004.
[IKEv2ALGO] J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the [IKEv2ALGO] J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the
Internet Key Exchange Version 2", draft-ietf-ipsec- Internet Key Exchange Version 2", draft-ietf-ipsec-
ikev2-algorithms-05.txt, Work in Progress. ikev2-algorithms-05.txt, Work in Progress.
[MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support [MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Sup-
in IPv6", draft- ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work in port in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work
progress. in 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- and Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-
ipsec-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 Ver-
2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-08.txt, Work in sion 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-08.txt,
Progress. Work in Progress.
Internet-Draft
[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-07.txt, Work in MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-07.txt, Work in
Progress. Progress.
[RFC-2011BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the [RFC-2011BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for
Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011- the Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-
update-09.txt, Work in progress. rfc2011-update-09.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.
Internet-Draft
[RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for [RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for
the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC-2402] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication [RFC-2402] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication
Header", RFC 2402, November 1998. Header", RFC 2402, November 1998.
[RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within [RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998. within 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
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
J., "Internet Security Association and Key Management Turner, J., "Internet Security Association and Key
Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998. Management 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.
Internet-Draft [RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algo-
rithm and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November
[RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algorithm 1998.
and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.
[RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher [RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998. Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.
[RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver- [RFC-2460] Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver-
sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December
1998.
[RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor [RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
1998. December 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
tocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.
[RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC Internet-Draft
2472, December 1998.
Protocol 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 [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] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC [RFC-2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
2671, August 1999. 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.
[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 Proto-
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. col for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver-
sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System
Internet-Draft
[RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol
version 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.
[RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the [RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Mul-
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, ticast 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.
Internet-Draft
[DEP-SL] C. Huitema, B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-
03.txt, Work in Progress.
12.2 Non-Normative 12.2 Non-Normative
[ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast", [ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast",
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,
1991. Jan 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,
MA, April 1995. Danvers, MA, April 1995.
[DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 [DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Ser-
Service", RFC 3736, April 2004. vice", RFC 3736, April 2004.
[DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and Rose, [DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and
S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements" draft- Rose, S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements"
ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-10.txt, Work in Progress. draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-10.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
S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", Rose, S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Exten-
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-08.txt, Work in sions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-08.txt, Work in
Progress. Progress.
[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
Internet-Draft
S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-06.txt, Extensions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-06.txt,
Work in Progress. Work in Progress.
[IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) [IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto-
Protocol", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-13.txt, Work in col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-13.txt, Work in Progress.
Progress.
[IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home [IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
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.
[MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu-
rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sym-
posium on Network and Distributed System Security",
Internet-Draft
[MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific
Security Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings
"Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security",
February 1995, pp.2-16. February 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 [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili-
facilities", RFC 1034, November 1987. ties", RFC 1034, November 1987.
[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 Ether-
Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998. net 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 [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo-
Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999. grams", RFC 2675, August 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", RFC "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses",
2851, June 2000. RFC 2851, June 2000.
[RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for [RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000. for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.
[RFC-3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
3168, September 2001.
[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", [RFC-3697] Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B., and S. Deering,
draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt, Work in Progress. "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 3697, March 2004.
Internet-Draft [SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt, Work in Progress.
13. Authors and Acknowledgements 13. Authors and Acknowledgements
This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team: This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Jari Arkko Jari Arkko
[jari.arkko@ericsson.com] [jari.arkko@ericsson.com]
Internet-Draft
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
skipping to change at page 18, line 50 skipping to change at page 19, line 43
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 The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car-
Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Nar-
Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments. ten, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments.
14. Editor's Contact Information 14. Editor's Contact Information
Internet-Draft
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: IPv6 Working Group mailing list (ipv6@ietf.org) or to:
John Loughney John Loughney
Nokia Research Center Nokia Research Center
Itamerenkatu 11-13 Itamerenkatu 11-13
Internet-Draft
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 Intellectual Property Statement
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 Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 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 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Internet-Draft
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

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