draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT R. Hinden, Nokia INTERNET-DRAFT R. Hinden, Nokia
February 18, 2005 B. Haberman, JHU-APL June 15, 2007 G. Huston, APNIC
Intended status: Proposed Standard T. Narten, IBM
Centrally Assigned Centrally Assigned
Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
<draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt> <draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This internet draft expires on August 23, 2005. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2007.
Abstract Abstract
This document defines Centrally allocated IPv6 Unique Local This document defines Centrally allocated IPv6 Unique Local
addresses. These addresses are globally unique and are intended for addresses. These addresses are globally unique and are intended for
local communications, usually inside of a site. They are not local communications, usually inside of a site. They are not
expected to be routable on the global Internet. expected to be routable on the global Internet.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction....................................................2 1.0 Introduction....................................................2
2.0 Acknowledgments.................................................3 2.0 Acknowledgments.................................................3
3.0 Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses....................................3 3.0 Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses....................................3
3.1 Format..........................................................3 3.1 Format..........................................................3
3.2 Global ID.......................................................4 3.2 Global ID.......................................................4
3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs.................................4 3.2.1 Allocation of Centrally Assigned Global IDs...................5
3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm.............6 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm.............5
3.3 Public Registration Services....................................6
4.0 Operational Guideliens..........................................6 4.0 Operational Guideliens..........................................6
5.0 Global Routing Considerations...................................7 5.0 Global Routing Considerations...................................7
5.1 From the Standpoint of the Internet.............................7 6.0 Security Considerations.........................................7
5.2 From the Standpoint of a Site...................................7 7.0 IANA Considerations.............................................7
6.0 Security Considerations.........................................8 8.0 References......................................................8
7.0 IANA Considerations.............................................8 8.1 Normative References............................................8
8.0 References......................................................9 8.2 Informative References..........................................8
8.1 Normative References............................................9 9.0 Authors' Addresses..............................................9
8.2 Informative References..........................................9 10.0 Change Log....................................................10
9.0 Authors' Addresses.............................................10 11.0 Full Copyright................................................10
10.0 Change Log....................................................11 12.0 Intellectual Property.........................................10
11.0 Intellectual Property.........................................11
12.0 Disclaimer of Validity........................................12
13.0 Copyright Statement...........................................12
1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction
This document defines the characteristics and technical allocation This document defines the characteristics and technical allocation
requirements for centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses in the requirements for centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses in the
framework defined in [ULA]. They are not expected to be routable on framework defined in [ULA]. They are not expected to be routable on
the global Internet. They are routable inside of a more limited area the global Internet. They are routable inside of a more limited area
such as a site. They may also be routed between a limited set of such as a site. They may also be routed between a limited set of
sites. sites.
Local IPv6 unicast addresses, as defined in [ULA], have the following Local IPv6 unicast addresses, as defined in [ULA], have the following
characteristics: characteristics:
- Globally unique prefix. - Globally unique prefix.
- Well known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site - Well known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site
boundaries. boundaries.
- Allows sites to be combined or privately interconnected without
creating any address conflicts or requiring renumbering of
interfaces using these prefixes.
- Internet Service Provider independent and can be used for - Internet Service Provider independent and can be used for
communications inside of a site without having any permanent or communications inside of a site without having any permanent or
intermittent Internet connectivity. intermittent Internet connectivity.
- If accidentally leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS,
there is no conflict with any other addresses.
- In practice, applications may treat these addresses like global - In practice, applications may treat these addresses like global
scoped addresses. scoped addresses.
It is a highly desirable property of ULAs that they are unique, as
ULA uniqueness would allow sites to be combined or privately
interconnected without creating any address conflicts.
Topics that are general to all Local IPv6 address can be found in the Topics that are general to all Local IPv6 address can be found in the
following sections of [ULA]: following sections of [ULA]:
3.3 Scope Definition 3.3 Scope Definition
4.0 Operational Guidelines ** 4.0 Operational Guidelines **
4.1 Routing 4.1 Routing
4.2 Renumbering and Site Merging 4.2 Renumbering and Site Merging
4.3 Site Border Router and Firewall Packet Filtering 4.3 Site Border Router and Firewall Packet Filtering
4.5 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues 4.5 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues
4.6 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses for Local Communications 4.6 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses for Local Communications
4.7 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses with VPNs 4.7 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses with VPNs
5.0 Global Routing Concerns
6.0 Advantages and Disadvantages 6.0 Advantages and Disadvantages
** Operational guidelines specific to centrally assigned Local IPv6 ** Note: Operational guidelines specific to centrally assigned Local
addresses are in Section 4.0 of this document. IPv6 addresses are in Section 4.0 of this document.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
2.0 Acknowledgments 2.0 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Charlie Perkins, The authors would like to thank Alan Beard, Alex Zinin, Bill Fenner,
Harald Alvestrand, Keith Moore, Margaret Wasserman, Shannon Behrens, Brian Carpenter, Brian Haberman Charlie Perkins, Christian Huitema,
Alan Beard, Hans Kruse, Geoff Huston, Pekka Savola, Christian Hans Kruse, Harald Alvestrand, Keith Moore, Leslie Daigle, Margaret
Huitema, Tim Chown, Steve Bellovin, Alex Zinin, Tony Hain, Leslie Wasserman, Pekka Savola, Shannon Behrens, Steve Bellovin, Tim Chown,
Daigle, and Bill Fenner for their comments and suggestions on this and Tony Hain for their comments and suggestions on this document.
document.
3.0 Centrally Assigned Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses 3.0 Centrally Assigned Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
3.1 Format 3.1 Format
The Centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses, based on Unique Local The Centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses, based on Unique Local
Addresses [ULA], have the following format: Addresses [ULA], have the following format:
| 7 bits |1| 40 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits | | 7 bits |1| 40 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits |
+--------+-+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ +--------+-+------------+-----------+----------------------------+
| Prefix |L| Global ID | Subnet ID | Interface ID | | Prefix |L| Global ID | Subnet ID | Interface ID |
+--------+-+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ +--------+-+------------+-----------+----------------------------+
Where: Where:
Prefix FC00::/7 prefix to identify Local IPv6 unicast Prefix FC00::/7 prefix to identify Local IPv6 unicast
addresses. addresses.
L Set to 1 if the prefix is locally assigned, L Set to 0 if the prefix is centrally assigned,
Set to 0 if it is centrally assigned. See Note: [ULA] defined L=1 for locally assigned
Section 3.2 for additional information. ULAs. This document defines L=0 for centrally
assigned ULA addresses. See Section 3.2 for
additional information.
Global ID 40-bit global identifier used to create a Global ID 40-bit global identifier used to create a
globally unique prefix. See Section 3.2 for globally unique prefix. See Section 3.2 for
additional information. additional information.
Subnet ID 16-bit Subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet Subnet ID 16-bit Subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet
within the site. within the site.
Interface ID 64-bit Interface ID as defined in [ADDARCH]. Interface ID 64-bit Interface ID as defined in [ADDARCH].
3.2 Global ID 3.2 Global ID
The allocation of Global IDs should be pseudo-random [RANDOM]. They The allocation of Global IDs should be pseudo-random [RANDOM]. They
MUST not be assigned sequentially or with well known numbers. This MUST not be assigned sequentially. They MUST not be allocated in a
is to ensure that there is not any relationship between allocations manner where there is a relationship between allocations that would
and to help clarify that these prefixes are not intended to be routed make it easy to aggregate the resulting prefixes. This is done to
globally. Specifically, these prefixes are designed to not make clear that these prefixes are not intended to be routed
aggregate. globally.
The major difference between the locally assigned Unique local The major difference between the locally assigned Unique Local
addresses defined in [ULA] and the centrally assigned local addresses Addresses defined in [ULA] and the centrally assigned Unique Local
defined in this document is that they are uniquely assigned and the Addresses, as defined in this document, is that they are uniquely
assignments can be escrowed to resolve any disputes regarding assigned and the assignments are registered in a public database.
duplicate assignments.
It is expected that large managed sites will prefer central It is expected that large managed sites will prefer central
assignments and small or disconnected sites will prefer local assignments and small or disconnected sites will prefer local
assignments. It is recommended that sites planning to use Local IPv6 assignments. It is recommended that sites planning to use Local IPv6
addresses for extensive inter-site communication, initially or as a addresses for extensive inter-site communication, initially or as a
future possibility, use a centrally assigned prefix as there is no future possibility, use a centrally assigned prefix as there is no
possibility of assignment conflicts. Sites are free to choose either possibility of assignment conflicts. Sites are free to choose either
approach. approach.
This document defines the allocation procedure for creating global- This document defines the allocation procedure for creating global-
IDs for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses (i.e., L=0). The IDs for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses (i.e., L=0). The
allocation procedure for locally assigned local IPv6 addresses (i.e., allocation procedure for locally assigned local IPv6 addresses (i.e.,
L=1) is defined in [ULA]. L=1) is defined in [ULA].
3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs 3.2.1 Allocation of Centrally Assigned Global IDs
Centrally assigned Global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random Global IDs should be allocated by a new registry function such that
algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. They should not be assigned each allocation is unique and that the assignment is recorded and
sequentially or by locality. This is to ensure that there is no published in a public database to verify that that allocation was
relationship between allocations and to help clarify that these unique.
prefixes are not intended to be routed globally by eliminating the
possibility of aggregation. Specifically, these prefixes are not
designed to aggregate.
Global IDs should be assigned under the authority of a single Global IDs may be assigned under the authority of a single allocation
allocation organization because they are pseudo-random and without organization or by multiple organizations. If there are multiple
any structure. This is easiest to accomplish if there is a single organizations, there MUST be an operating procedure that ensures that
authority for the assignments. the entire allocation space maintains it property of uniqueness and
that the allocations are recorded in a single public database.
The requirements for centrally assigned Global ID allocations are: The requirements for centrally assigned Global ID allocations are:
- Globally unique.
- Available to anyone in an unbiased manner. - Available to anyone in an unbiased manner.
- Permanent with no periodic fees.
- Allocation on a permanent basis, without any need for renewal
and without any procedure for de-allocation.
- Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding of these allocations.
- The ownership of each individual allocation should be private,
but should be escrowed.
The allocation authority should permit allocations to be obtained
without having any sort of Internet connectivity. For example in
addition to web based registration they should support some methods
like telephone, postal mail, fax, etc.
The allocation service should include sufficient provisions to avoid The allocation function must include the ability to make an
hoarding of numbers. This can be accomplished by various ways, for allocation on a permanent basis, without any need for renewal and
example, requiring an exchange of documents, a verbal contact, or a without any procedure for de-allocation. Other forms of allocation,
proof that the request is on behalf of a human rather than a machine. including periodic renewable allocations and explicit provision for
The service may charge a small fee in order to cover its costs, but de-allocation may also be provided.
the fee should be low enough to not create a barrier to anyone
needing one. The precise mechanisms should be decided by the
registration authority.
The ownership of the allocations is not needed to be public since the The allocation service should include sufficient provisions to
resulting addresses are intended to be used for local communication. mitigate attempts to artificially reduce the number pool through
It is escrowed to ensure there are no duplicate allocations and in hoarding of numbers. The mechanism used by the registration
case it is needed in the future (e.g., to resolve duplicate authority should not include onerous provisions that reduce the
allocation disputes, or to support a change of the central allocation intent that these allocations should be available to anyone in an
authority). unbiased manner, and should not attempt to perform rationing or
impose quotas upon allocations.
Note, there are many possible ways of of creating an allocation The registration authority may covers its costs through registration
authority. It is important to keep in mind when reviewing fees and may also use registration agreements to clearly set forth
alternatives that the goal is to pick one that can do the job. It the terms conditions and liabilities associated with registration of
doesn't have to be perfect, only good enough to do the job at hand. such allocations. The payments and conditions associated with this
function should not be unreasonably onerous to the extent that the
availability of allocations is impaired.
3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm
The algorithm described below is intended to be used for centrally The algorithm described below is intended to be used for centrally
assigned Global IDs. In each case the resulting global ID will be assigned Global IDs. In each case the resulting global ID will be
used in the appropriate prefix as defined in Section 3.2. used in the appropriate prefix as defined in Section 3.2.
1) Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format [NTP]. 1) Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format [NTP].
2) Obtain an EUI-64 identifier from the system running this 2) Obtain an EUI-64 identifier from the system running this
algorithm. If an EUI-64 does not exist, one can be created from algorithm. If an EUI-64 does not exist, one can be created from
skipping to change at page 6, line 19 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
The algorithm described below is intended to be used for centrally The algorithm described below is intended to be used for centrally
assigned Global IDs. In each case the resulting global ID will be assigned Global IDs. In each case the resulting global ID will be
used in the appropriate prefix as defined in Section 3.2. used in the appropriate prefix as defined in Section 3.2.
1) Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format [NTP]. 1) Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format [NTP].
2) Obtain an EUI-64 identifier from the system running this 2) Obtain an EUI-64 identifier from the system running this
algorithm. If an EUI-64 does not exist, one can be created from algorithm. If an EUI-64 does not exist, one can be created from
a 48-bit MAC address as specified in [ADDARCH]. If an EUI-64 a 48-bit MAC address as specified in [ADDARCH]. If an EUI-64
cannot be obtained or created, a suitably unique identifier, cannot be obtained or created, a suitably unique identifier,
local to the node, should be used (e.g. system serial number). local to the node, should be used (e.g. system serial number).
3) Concatenate the time of day with the system-specific identifier 3) Concatenate the time of day with the system-specific identifier
creating a key. creating a key.
4) Compute an SHA-1 digest on the key as specified in [FIPS, SHA1]; 4) Compute an SHA-1 digest on the key as specified in [FIPS, SHA1];
the resulting value is 160 bits. the resulting value is 160 bits.
5) Use the least significant 40 bits as the Global ID. 5) Use the least significant 40 bits as the Global ID.
6) Verify that the computed Global ID is not in the escrow. If it 6) Verify that the computed Global ID is not already assigned. If
is, discard the value and rerun the algorithm. it is, discard the value and rerun the algorithm.
6) Concatenate FC00::/7, the L bit set to 0, and the 40 bit Global 7) Concatenate FC00::/7, the L bit set to 0, and the 40 bit Global
ID to create a centrally assigned Local IPv6 address prefix. ID to create a centrally assigned Local IPv6 address prefix.
This algorithm will result in a Global ID that is unique and can be This algorithm will result in a Global ID that is unique and can be
used to create a centrally assigned local IPv6 address prefix. used to create a centrally assigned local IPv6 address prefix.
3.3 Public Registration Services
The registration of centrally assigned ULAs should be available in a
public database. This function should support a query of a specific
ULA prefix and then return the registrant's provided detail.
Information should be provided in a robust fashion, consistent with
the current state of similar registration services provided by
address and domain name registration authorities.
4.0 Operational Guidelines 4.0 Operational Guidelines
4.1 DNS Issues 4.1 DNS Issues
At the present time AAAA and PTR records for centrally assigned local AAAA and PTR records for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses may
IPv6 addresses may be installed in the global DNS. This may be be installed in the global DNS. This may be useful if these
useful if these addresses are being used for site to site or VPN addresses are being used for site to site or VPN style applications,
style applications, or for sites that wish to avoid separate DNS or for sites that wish to avoid separate DNS systems for inside and
systems for inside and outside traffic. outside traffic.
The operational issues relating to this are beyond the scope of this The operational issues relating to this are beyond the scope of this
document. document.
5.0 Global Routing Considerations 5.0 Global Routing Considerations
Section 4.1 of [ULA] provides operational guidelines that forbid Since [ULA] was first published, the Regional Internet Address
default routing of local addresses between sites. Concerns were Registries (RIR) created a new policy to allocate IPv6 Provider
raised to the IPv6 working group and to the IETF as a whole that Independent Addresses [RIR-PI]. Given the availability of RIR
sites may attempt to use local addresses as globally routed provider- allocated provider-independent addresses the authors believe that
independent addresses. This section describes why using local there is considerably less concern that ULAs of either type will be
addresses as globally-routed provider-independent addresses is used as IPv6 provider-independent addresses.
unadvisable.
5.1 From the Standpoint of the Internet
There is a mismatch between the structure of IPv6 local addresses and
the normal IPv6 wide area routing model. The /48 prefix of an IPv6
local addresses fits nowhere in the normal hierarchy of IPv6 unicast
addresses. Normal IPv6 unicast addresses can be routed
hierarchically down to physical subnet (link) level and only have to
be flat-routed on the physical subnet. IPv6 local addresses would
have to be flat-routed even over the wide area Internet.
Thus, packets whose destination address is an IPv6 local address
could be routed over the wide area only if the corresponding /48
prefix were carried by the wide area routing protocol in use, such as
BGP. This contravenes the operational assumption that long prefixes
will be aggregated into many fewer short prefixes, to limit the table
size and convergence time of the routing protocol. If a network uses
both normal IPv6 addresses [ADDARCH] and IPv6 local addresses, these
types of address will certainly not aggregate with each other, since
they differ from the most significant bit onwards. Neither will IPv6
local addresses aggregate with each other, due to their random bit
patterns. This means that there would be a very significant
operational penalty for attempting to use IPv6 local address prefixes
generically with currently known wide area routing technology.
5.2 From the Standpoint of a Site
There are a number of design factors in IPv6 local addresses that
reduce the likelihood that IPv6 local addresses will be used as
arbitrary global unicast addresses. These include:
- The default rules to filter packets and routes make it very
difficult to use IPv6 local addresses for arbitrary use across
the Internet. For a site to use them as general purpose unicast
addresses, they would have to make sure that the default rules
were not being used by all other sites and intermediate ISPs
used for their current and future communication.
- They are not registered in public databases. The lack of public The operational guidelines regarding routing of centrally assigned
registration creates operational problems. local addresses is that such address prefixes should be readily
routed within a site or comparable administrative routing domain.
- The addresses are allocated randomly. If a site had multiple By default, such prefixes should not be announced beyond such a local
prefixes that they wanted to be used globally the cost of scope, due to the non-aggregateability of these prefixes within the
advertising them would be very high as they could not be routing system and the potential negative impact on the total size of
aggregated. the routing space in large scale internet environments.
- They have a long prefix (i.e, /48) so a single local address Entities wishing to use IPv6 Provider Independent Addresses (PI
prefix doesn't provide enough address space to be used Space) in such larger routing contexts should consult the Regional
exclusively by the largest organizations. Internet Registries policies relating to the allocation of PI Space
[RIR-PI].
6.0 Security Considerations 6.0 Security Considerations
Local IPv6 addresses do not provide any inherent security to the Local IPv6 addresses do not provide any inherent security to the
nodes that use them. They may be used with filters at site nodes that use them. They may be used with filters at site
boundaries to keep Local IPv6 traffic inside of the site, but this is boundaries to keep Local IPv6 traffic inside of the site, but this is
no more or less secure than filtering any other type of global IPv6 no more or less secure than filtering any other type of global IPv6
unicast addresses. unicast addresses.
Local IPv6 addresses do allow for address-based security mechanisms, Local IPv6 addresses do allow for address-based security mechanisms,
including IPSEC, across end to end VPN connections. including IPSEC, across end to end VPN connections.
7.0 IANA Considerations 7.0 IANA Considerations
The IANA is instructed to designate an allocation authority, based on The IANA is instructed to designate an allocation authority for
instructions from the IAB, for centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6 centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6 unicast addresses. This
unicast addresses. This allocation authority shall comply with the allocation authority shall comply with the requirements described in
requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document, including in Section 3.2 of this document, including in particular allocation on a
particular allocation on a permanent basis and with sufficient permanent basis and with sufficient provisions to avoid hoarding of
provisions to avoid hoarding of numbers. If deemed appropriate, the numbers. If deemed appropriate, the authority may also consist of
authority may also consist of multiple organizations performing the multiple organizations performing the allocation authority duties.
allocation authority duties.
The Regional Internet Address registries are expected to be the
allocation authority for centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6
addresses.
The designated allocation authority is required to document how they The designated allocation authority is required to document how they
will meet the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document will meet the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document
in an RFC. This RFC will be shepherd through the IETF by the IAB. in an RFC.
8.0 References 8.0 References
8.1 Normative References 8.1 Normative References
[ADDARCH] Hinden, R., S. Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing [ADDARCH] Hinden, R., S. Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 3515, April 2003. Architecture", RFC 3515, April 2003.
[FIPS] "Federal Information Processing Standards Publication", [FIPS] "Federal Information Processing Standards Publication",
(FIPS PUB) 180-1, Secure Hash Standard, 17 April 1995. (FIPS PUB) 180-1, Secure Hash Standard, 17 April 1995.
[GLOBAL] Hinden, R., S. Deering, E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global Unicast
Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003.
[ICMPV6] Conta, A., S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol
(ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC2463, December 1998.
[IPV6] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[NTP] Mills, David L., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) [NTP] Mills, David L., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
Specification, Implementation and Analysis", RFC 1305, Specification, Implementation and Analysis", RFC 1305,
March 1992. March 1992.
[POPUL] Population Reference Bureau, "World Population Data Sheet [RANDOM] Eastlake, D. 3rd, J. Schiller, S. Crocker, "Randomness
of the Population Reference Bureau 2002", August 2002. Recommendations for Security", RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RANDOM] Eastlake, D. 3rd, S. Crocker, J. Schiller, "Randomness
Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP14, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP14, March 1997.
[SHA1] D. Eastlake 3rd, P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 [SHA1] D. Eastlake 3rd, P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1
(SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001. (SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001.
[ULA] Hinden, R., B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast [ULA] Hinden, R., B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", Internet Draft <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local- Addresses", RFC-4193, October 2005.
addr-08.txt>, November 2004.
8.2 Informative References 8.2 Informative References
[ADDAUTO] Thomson, S., T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address [RIR-PI] O. DeLong, K. Loch, A. Dul, "Policy Proposal 2005-1:
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites",
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html, May 2006.
[ADDSEL] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[DHCP6] Droms, R., et. al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC3315, July 2003.
[RTP] Schulzrinne, H., S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"
RFC3550, July 2003.
9.0 Authors' Addresses 9.0 Authors' Addresses
Robert M. Hinden Robert M. Hinden
Nokia Nokia
313 Fairchild Drive 313 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
USA USA
phone: +1 650 625-2004 phone: +1 650 625-2004
email: bob.hinden@nokia.com email: bob.hinden@nokia.com
Brian Haberman Geoff Huston
Johns Hopkins University APNIC
Applied Physics Lab
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD 20723
USA
phone: +1 443 778 1319 Thomas Narten
email: brian@innovationslab.net IBM Corporation
3039 Cornwallis Ave.
PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
Phone: +1 919 254 7798
email: narten@us.ibm.com
10.0 Change Log 10.0 Change Log
Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt>
o Major revision based on experience to date with [ULA] and later
input from the RIR community
Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-01.txt> Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-01.txt>
o Revised to keep consistent with [ULA]. This includes single o Revised to keep consistent with [ULA]. This includes single
prefix, L bit, change to SHA-1 algorithm, and clarifications to prefix, L bit, change to SHA-1 algorithm, and clarifications to
suggested algorithm. suggested algorithm.
o Revised IANA considerations section based on feedback from the o Revised IANA considerations section based on feedback from the
IAB. IAB.
o Added new DNS operational guidelines sections specific to o Added new DNS operational guidelines sections specific to
centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses. centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses.
o Editorial changes. o Editorial changes.
Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt> Draft <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-00.txt>
o Initial Draft created from [ULA]. This draft defines the o Initial Draft created from [ULA]. This draft defines the
centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses. centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses.
11.0 Intellectual Property 11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
12. 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 to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 20
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
12.0 Disclaimer of Validity Acknowledgment
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.
13.0 Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
212 lines changed or deleted 163 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/