draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.txt   rfc4294.txt 
IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed) Network Working Group J. Loughney, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Request for Comments: 4294 Nokia
August 23, 2004 Category: Informational April 2006
Expires: February 22, 2005
IPv6 Node Requirements IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
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 RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Status of This Memo
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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 that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
and deployments. deployments.
Internet-Draft
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1 Requirement Language 1.1. Requirement Language .......................................3
1.2 Scope of this Document 1.2. Scope of This Document .....................................3
1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes 1.3. Description of IPv6 Nodes ..................................3
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document .............................3
3. Sub-IP Layer 3. Sub-IP Layer ....................................................4
3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464 3.1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472 - RFC 2464 .................................................4
3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492 3.2. IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 2472 ...........................4
4. IP Layer 3.3. IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492 ..........................4
4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460 4. IP Layer ........................................................5
4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 4.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 .....................5
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size 4.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461 .....................5
4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463 4.3. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size .........................6
4.5 Addressing 4.4. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) -
4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710 RFC 2463 ...................................................7
5. DNS and DHCP 4.5. Addressing .................................................7
5.1 DNS 4.6. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 .....8
5.2 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 5. DNS and DHCP ....................................................8
6. IPv4 Support and Transition 5.1. DNS ........................................................8
6.1 Transition Mechanisms 5.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
7. Mobility (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 ........................................9
8. Security 6. IPv4 Support and Transition ....................................10
8.1 Basic Architecture 6.1. Transition Mechanisms .....................................10
8.2 Security Protocols 7. Mobile IP ......................................................10
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms 8. Security .......................................................10
8.4 Key Management Methods 8.1. Basic Architecture ........................................10
9. Router Functionality 8.2. Security Protocols ........................................11
9.1 General 8.3. Transforms and Algorithms .................................11
10. Network Management 8.4. Key Management Methods ....................................12
10.1 MIBs 9. Router-Specific Functionality ..................................12
11. Security Considerations 9.1. General ...................................................12
12. References 10. Network Management ............................................12
12.1 Normative 10.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) ...............12
12.2 Non-Normative 11. Security Considerations .......................................13
13. Authors and Acknowledgements 12. References ....................................................13
14. Editor's Address 12.1. Normative References .....................................13
Notices 12.2. Informative References ...................................16
13. Authors and Acknowledgements ..................................18
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 this document implement optional or additional features, but this document
summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track summarizes requirements from other published Standards Track
documents in one place. documents in one place.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 45
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 Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
from others [RFC-793]. others [RFC-793].
1.1 Requirement Language 1.1. Requirement Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC- document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119].
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 to ensure
to ensure interoperability. interoperability.
This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
requirements specified here. requirements specified here.
1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes 1.3. Description of IPv6 Nodes
From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
have the following definitions: [RFC-2460], we have the following definitions:
Description of an IPv6 Node Description of an IPv6 Node
Internet-Draft - a device that implements IPv6.
- a device that implements IPv6
Description of an IPv6 router Description of an IPv6 router
- a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed
itself. to itself.
Description of an IPv6 Host Description of an IPv6 Host
- any node that is not a router. - any node that is not a router.
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document 2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
AH Authentication Header AH Authentication Header
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
3. Sub-IP Layer 3. Sub-IP Layer
Internet-Draft
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 As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
new specifications will be issued. This section highlights some specifications will be issued. This section highlights some major
major layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete. layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.
3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464 3.1. Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC 2464
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 - RFC 2472
Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP [RFC- Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP
2472]. [RFC-2472].
3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492 3.3. IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492
Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM
Networks [RFC-2492]. Additionally, RFC 2492 states: Networks [RFC-2492]. Additionally, RFC 2492 states:
A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
SHALL also support PVC mode of operation. SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.
4. IP Layer 4. IP Layer
4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460 4.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This
specification MUST be supported. specification MUST be supported.
Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460. extensions MUST be processed as described in RFC 2460.
The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460. The node MUST follow the packet transmission rules in RFC 2460.
Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive and process fragment Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive, and process fragment
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 receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
supported be 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
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 following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type 0),
0), Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and Encapsulating
Encapsulating Security Payload. [RFC-2460] Security Payload [RFC-2460].
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. It should be
noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers
and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused by them. and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] that they cause.
4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461 4.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 2461
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
IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., NBMA
links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those links) alternative protocols or mechanisms to implement those
services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering services will be specified (in the appropriate document covering
the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services the operation of IP over a particular link type). The services
described in this document that are not directly dependent on described in this document that are not directly dependent on
multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor multicast, such as Redirects, Next-hop determination, Neighbor
skipping to change at page 6, line 46 skipping to change at page 6, line 20
attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for
implementations. implementations.
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 Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links supporting
supporting link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD link-layer multicast (RFC 2462, Section 5.4, specifies DAD MUST take
MUST take place on all unicast addresses). 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
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 Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are
required 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 and Packet Size
4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 4.3.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981
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 implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets.
packets. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and
fragmentation and reassembly. reassembly.
4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675 4.3.2. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675
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) - RFC 2463
ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported. ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported.
Addressing 4.5. Addressing
4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513 4.5.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 3513
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 [RFC-3879].
4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462 4.5.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 2462
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. 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
Internet-Draft
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 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 - RFC 3041
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC- Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-3041]
3041] SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be
configurable on a connection basis within each application when configurable on a connection basis within each application when
available. It is noted that a number of applications do not work available. It is noted that a number of applications do not work
with addresses generated with this method, while other applications with addresses generated with this method, while other applications
work quite well with them. work quite well with them.
4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484 4.5.4. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 3484
The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC- The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6
3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes [RFC-3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6
will need to deal with multiple addresses. nodes will need to deal with multiple addresses.
4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration 4.5.5. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 [RFC- Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6
3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see [RFC-3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol;
section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support. see 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 that 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 Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other configuration
configuration information such as the addresses of DNS servers when information, such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is
it is connected to a link over which the node receives a router 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 - RFC 2710
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 [RFC-3810]. However, if the node has applications that only need
support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC-3569], the node MAY implement
MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications, which need MLDv1 [RFC-2710] instead. If the node has applications that need
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC-3569, SSM-ARCH], the node
Internet-Draft MUST support MLDv2 [RFC-3810].
support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node
MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2].
When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the When MLD is used, the rules in the "Source Address Selection for the
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be
followed. followed.
5. 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; those that
that will never need to resolve DNS names do not need to implement 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 names SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, as in
RFC 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 extensions
[DNSSEC-INTRO], [DNSSEC-REC] and [DNSSEC-PROT]. [RFC-4033], [RFC-4034], and [RFC-4035].
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) - RFC 3315
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
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
for address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements.
Advertisements.
5.2.2 Other Configuration Information
Internet-Draft 5.2.2. Other Configuration Information
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
described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP
not use DHCP for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router
flag in Router Advertisements. 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 [RFC-3736]) to
obtain other configuration information. obtain other configuration information.
5.3.3 Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 5.3.3. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments
Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
(DHCPv6) are expected to determine their default router information are expected to determine their default router information and on-
and on-link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. 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 - RFC 2893
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then RFC2893 If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC-4213]
MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
RFC 2893 is currently being updated.
7. Mobile IP 7. Mobile IP
The Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] specification defines requirements for the The Mobile IPv6 [RFC-3775] 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 [RFC-3775], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-
and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC]. 2473] and secure home agent communications [RFC-3776].
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 [RFC-3775].
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 [RFC-3775]. 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]. [RFC-3775], including support of [RFC-2473] and [RFC-3776].
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-4301] MUST be
supported. RFC-2401 is being updated by the IPsec Working Group. supported.
8.2 Security Protocols 8.2. Security Protocols
ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported. ESP [RFC-4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-4302] MUST be supported.
RFC-2406 and RFC 2402 are being updated by the IPsec Working Group.
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms 8.3. Transforms and Algorithms
Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms
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
and HMAC-MD5-96. However, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation HMAC-MD5-96. However, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the current set of Requirements For ESP And AH" [RFC-4305] 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
conform to the requirements in [CRYPTREQ] as well as the to the requirements in [RFC-4305], as well as the requirements
requirements specified below. specified below.
Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
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-4303] 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], and [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 in the near future. DES provides 56 bits of protection,
which is no longer considered sufficient.
Internet-Draft
longer considered sufficient.
The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC-2404] within AH and ESP MUST The use of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC-2404] within AH and ESP
be supported. The use of HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC-2403] within AH MUST be supported. The use of the HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC-2403]
and ESP MAY also be supported. within AH 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
the same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm within
within ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability. ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability.
The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST also be supported within The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST also be supported 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 future. current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the 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 IKEv2 [RFC-4306] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include
[IKEv2] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include key management 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, automated creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated keying
keying MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked on
on by the MSEC WG. by the MSEC WG.
9. Router-Specific Functionality 9. Router-Specific Functionality
This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing- act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing-
specific requirements. specific requirements.
9.1 General 9.1. General
9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711 9.1.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711
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 - RFC 2461
9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation MUST
MUST be supported. 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
IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
only possibility to control these nodes. possible way of controlling these nodes.
10.1 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs) 10.1. Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)
The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent. SNMP agent.
10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB 10.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB
IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-2096BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes that
that support an SNMP agent. 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-4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an SNMP
SNMP agent. agent.
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but This document 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 RFC 2460 state the following:
The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401]. Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].
12. References RFC 2401 has been obsoleted by RFC 4301, therefore refer RFC 4301 for
the security features of IPv6.
12.1 Normative
[CRYPTREQ] D. Eastlake 3rd, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementa-
tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec-
esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 2004.
[IKEv2ALGO] J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the
Internet Key Exchange Version 2", draft-ietf-ipsec-
Internet-Draft
ikev2-algorithms-05.txt, Work in Progress.
[MIPv6] J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Sup-
port in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work
in progress.
[MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec 12. References
to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes
and Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-
ipsec-06.txt, Work in Progress.
[MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Ver- 12.1. Normative References
sion 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-08.txt,
Work in Progress.
[RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU [RFC-1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "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-2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-07.txt, Work in
Progress.
[RFC-2011BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for
the Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-
rfc2011-update-09.txt, Work in progress.
[RFC-2104] Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC:
Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997. February 1997.
[RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for [RFC-2403] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96
the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC-2402] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication
Header", RFC 2402, November 1998.
[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 R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96
within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
Internet-Draft [RFC-2405] Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "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-2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm
Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.
[RFC-2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
[RFC-2408] Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and
Turner, J., "Internet Security Association and Key
Management Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November
1998.
[RFC-2409] Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key
Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[RFC-2410] Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algo- [RFC-2411] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
rithm and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
1998.
[RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher [RFC-2451] Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "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 R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version
sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
1998.
[RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
December 1998.
[RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address [RFC-2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462. Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December
1998.
[RFC-2463] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet [RFC-2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998. Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP", [RFC-2463] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message
RFC 2472, December 1998. Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2463, December 1998.
[RFC-2473] Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2472] Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC
in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. Xxx 2472, December 1998.
add
[RFC-2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", [RFC-2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
RFC 2671, August 1999. IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
Internet-Draft [RFC-2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
2671, August 1999.
[RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast [RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "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 A. Jackson, "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 R. Draves, "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", BCP 49, RFC 3152,
2001. August 2001.
[RFC-3315] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Proto- [RFC-3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
col for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol [RFC-3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and
version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System T. Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6
(DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC
3363, August 2002.
[RFC-3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC [RFC-3484] Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S., and B. Wijnen,
3484, February 2003. "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version
3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
Framework", BCP 74, RFC 3584, August 2003.
[RFC-3513] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC-3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version
Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April
2003.
[RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Mul- [RFC-3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the
ticast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC
3590, September 2003.
[RFC-3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
October 2003.
[RFC-3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC
Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
September 2003. September 2003.
[RFC-3596] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP [RFC-3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003. Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC-3602] S. Frankel, "The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use [RFC-3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using
with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003. IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile
Nodes and Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[DEP-SL] C. Huitema, B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local [RFC-3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local- Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
03.txt, Work in Progress.
12.2 Non-Normative [RFC-3879] Huitema, C. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
Addresses", RFC 3879, September 2004.
[ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast", [RFC-4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt, Work in April 2006.
Progress.
[DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of [RFC-4293] Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for
the Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.
Internet-Draft [RFC-4301] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for
the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC-4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005.
[RFC-4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.
[RFC-4305] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Cryptographic Algorithm
Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC
4305, December 2005.
12.2. Informative References
[DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of
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.
[DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Ser- [IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
vice", RFC 3736, April 2004. Address Options", Work in Progress.
[DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and
Rose, S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements"
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-10.txt, Work in Progress.
[DNSSEC-REC] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and
Rose, S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Exten-
sions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-08.txt, Work in
Progress.
[DNSSEC-PROT] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and [RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
Rose, S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security RFC 793, September 1981.
Extensions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-06.txt,
Work in Progress.
[IKE2] Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto- [RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and
col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-13.txt, Work in Progress. facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home [RFC-2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security- Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
03.txt, Work in Progress. Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997.
[MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu- [RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sym- Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
posium on Network and Distributed System Security",
February 1995, pp.2-16.
[RFC-793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, [RFC-2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over
August 1980. ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.
[RFC-1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili- [RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6
ties", RFC 1034, November 1987. Jumbograms", RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC-2205] Braden, B. (ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and [RFC-4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition
S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", RFC Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
2205, September 1997. October 2005.
Internet-Draft [RFC-3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
[RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ether- [RFC-3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration
net Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998. Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April
2004.
[RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over [RFC-4001] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J.
ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet
Network Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005.
[RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo- [RFC-4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
grams", RFC 2675, August 1999. S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder, [RFC-4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
"Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security
RFC 2851, June 2000. Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms [RFC-4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000. S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC-3569] S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific [RFC-4306] Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2)
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005.
[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", 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]
Marc Blanchet Marc Blanchet
[marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] [marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca]
skipping to change at page 19, line 4 skipping to change at page 18, line 31
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]
Dave Thaler Dave Thaler
[dthaler@windows.microsoft.com] [dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]
Juha Wiljakka Juha Wiljakka
[juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com] [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car- The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Nar- Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
ten, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments. Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments.
14. Editor's Contact Information 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
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 Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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.
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.
Intellectual Property
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 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
in this document or the extent to which any license under such this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC docu- on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
ments can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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
Internet-Draft such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
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 ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Internet Society. Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
 End of changes. 174 change blocks. 
440 lines changed or deleted 371 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.29, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/