draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-10.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.txt 
IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia Internet-Draft Nokia
August 12, 2004 August 23, 2004
Expires: February 12, 2005 Expires: February 22, 2005
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-10.txt draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.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 and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
with 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 3, line 11
13. Authors and Acknowledgements 13. Authors and Acknowledgements
14. Editor's Address 14. Editor's Address
Notices Notices
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The goal of this document is to define the common functionality The goal of this document is to define the common functionality
required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will required from both IPv6 hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will
implement optional or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be implement optional or additional features, but this document
expected to implement the mandatory requirements listed in this summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track
document. documents in one place.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
references RFCs for this purpose. In case of any conflicting text, references RFCs for this purpose. This document is informational in
this document takes less precedence than the normative RFCs, unless nature and does not update Standards Track RFCs.
additional clarifying text is included in this document.
Although the document points to different specifications, it should Although the document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory. multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.
As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact As it is not always possible for an implementer to know the exact
usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is usage of IPv6 in a node, an overriding requirement for IPv6 nodes is
that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle:
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
fragmentation and 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 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 as The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported as
updated by [DEP-SL]. 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.
Static address can be supported as well.
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
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface. them to an interface.
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported. Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.
4.5.3 Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC3041 4.5.3 Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC3041
skipping to change at page 8, line 54 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
it is connected to a link over which the node receives a router it is connected to a link over which the node receives a router
advertisement in which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") advertisement in 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
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node
MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2]. 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 43
[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
The method by which IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment The method by which IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment
Internet-Draft
can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set is described receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set is described
in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.
In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 Nodes that use In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 Nodes that use
DHCP for address assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 DHCP for address assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6
addresses and other configuration information, as described in addresses and other configuration information, as described in
section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP 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 for address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router
Advertisements. Advertisements.
5.2.2 Other Configuration Information 5.2.2 Other Configuration Information
Internet-Draft
The method by which IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other The method by which IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other
configuration information can obtain other configuration information configuration information can obtain other configuration information
upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set is upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set is
described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. 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 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 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' not use DHCP for other configuration information can ignore the 'O'
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 43
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]
and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC]. and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC].
Internet-Draft
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]. [MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC].
8. Security 8. Security
skipping to change at page 12, line 4 skipping to change at page 11, line 42
for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96,
and HMAC-MD5-96. However, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation and HMAC-MD5-96. However, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the current set of Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the current set of
mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH. It also specifies
algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be
promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes SHOULD promoted to mandatory at some future time. IPv6 nodes SHOULD
conform to the requirements in [CRYPTREQ] as well as the conform to the requirements in [CRYPTREQ] as well as the
requirements specified below. requirements specified below.
Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
Internet-Draft
for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] and the NULL for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] and the NULL
authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be provided to maintain authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be provided to maintain
consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However, consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However,
while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT
both be NULL. The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for both be NULL. The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for
debugging. debugging.
The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2405] SHOULD NOT be supported The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2405] SHOULD NOT be supported
within ESP. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed within ESP. Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed
in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. DES-CBC is still listed as in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. DES-CBC is still listed as
required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will
be published soon. DES provides 56 bits of protection, which is no be published soon. DES provides 56 bits of protection, which is no
Internet-Draft
longer considered sufficient. longer considered sufficient.
The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC-2404] within AH and ESP MUST The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC-2404] within AH and ESP MUST
be supported. The use of HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC-2403] within AH be supported. The use of HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC-2403] within AH
and ESP MAY also be supported. and ESP MAY also be supported.
The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2451] does not suffer from The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2451] does not suffer from
the same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm the same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm
within ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability. within ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability.
The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST also be supported The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST also be supported within
within
ESP. AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and ESP. AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and
efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the efficient algorithm. While AES-128-CBC is not required by the
current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future.
future.
8.4 Key Management Methods 8.4 Key Management Methods
An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the
security key and SPI. The SPI configuration is needed in order to security key and SPI. The SPI configuration is needed in order to
delineate between multiple keys. delineate between multiple keys.
Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management Key management SHOULD be supported. Examples of key management
systems include IKEv1 [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409], IKEv2 systems include IKEv1 [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409], IKEv2
[IKEv2] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include key management [IKEv2] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include key management
functions. functions.
Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand
creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated
automated keying MUST be supported. keying MUST be supported.
Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked
on by the MSEC WG. on by the MSEC WG.
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.
Internet-Draft
9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
10. Network Management 10. Network Management
Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for
IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the
only possibility to control these nodes. only possibility to control these nodes.
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 42
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 Implementa- [CRYPTREQ] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementa-
tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec- tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec-
esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 2004. esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 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-
Internet-Draft
ikev2-algorithms-05.txt, Work in Progress. ikev2-algorithms-05.txt, Work in Progress.
[MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Sup- [MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Sup-
port in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work port in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work
in 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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 43
the Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6- the Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-
rfc2011-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 [RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5
within 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.
Internet-Draft
[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 [RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and
skipping to change at page 16, line 4 skipping to change at page 15, line 43
1998. 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, Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
December 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 [RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet
Internet-Draft
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998. Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.
[RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", [RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP",
RFC 2472, December 1998. 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-2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, August 1999. RFC 2671, August 1999.
Internet-Draft
[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.
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 44
[RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Mul- [RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Mul-
ticast 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 [DEP-SL] C. Huitema, B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local- Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-
03.txt, Work in Progress. 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
Internet-Draft
DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4, DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4,
Jan 1991. Jan 1991.
[DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA [DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA
2000. 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, Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF,
Danvers, MA, April 1995. Danvers, MA, April 1995.
skipping to change at page 18, line 4 skipping to change at page 17, line 44
[IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto- [IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto-
col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-13.txt, Work in Progress. col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-13.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
Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security- Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-
03.txt, Work in Progress. 03.txt, Work in Progress.
[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 "Sym- rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sym-
posium on Network and Distributed System Security", posium on Network and Distributed System Security",
Internet-Draft
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 facili- [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili-
ties", 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.
Internet-Draft
[RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ether- [RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ether-
net 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 Jumbo- [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo-
grams", 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", "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses",
RFC 2851, June 2000. RFC 2851, June 2000.
[RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms [RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms
for 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.
[RFC-3697] Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B., and S. Deering,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 3697, March 2004.
[SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for [SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt, Work in Progress. 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
[gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr] [gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr]
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
[itojun@iijlab.net] [itojun@iijlab.net]
Atsushi Inoue Atsushi Inoue
[inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] [inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
Masahiro Ishiyama Masahiro Ishiyama
Internet-Draft
[masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] [masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
John Loughney John Loughney
[john.loughney@nokia.com] [john.loughney@nokia.com]
Rajiv Raghunarayan Rajiv Raghunarayan
[raraghun@cisco.com] [raraghun@cisco.com]
Shoichi Sakane Shoichi Sakane
[shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com] [shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com]
skipping to change at page 20, line 4 skipping to change at page 19, line 36
ten, 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
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
Intellectual Property Statement Notices
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights in this document or the extent to which any license under such
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC docu-
be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. ments can 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
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this Internet-Draft
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specifi-
cation 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 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
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 Acknowledgement
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/