Internet DRAFT - draft-clw-rfc6434-bis
draft-clw-rfc6434-bis
Internet Engineering Task Force T. Chown
Internet-Draft Jisc
Obsoletes: 6434 (if approved) J. Loughney
Intended status: Informational Nokia
Expires: September 14, 2017 T. Winters
University of New Hampshire
March 13, 2017
IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-01
Abstract
This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected
that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
deployments.
This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Sub-IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IP Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes -
RFC 4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971 . . . . . . . 9
5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175 . 9
5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) -
RFC 4443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291 . . . 11
5.9.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations . . . . . . 11
5.9.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 . 11
5.9.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6
- RFC 4941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.9.5. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724 . . . . 13
5.9.6. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC
3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 13
6. DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. DNS and DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) -
RFC 3315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.1. Other Configuration Information . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments 16
7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration - RFC 6106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IPv4 Support and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers - RFC 4213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Application Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952 . 16
9.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) . . . . . . . . 17
10. Cellular Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Transforms and Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. Router-Specific Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711 . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . 19
12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315 . 20
13. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules . . . . . . . 20
13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet
Protocol (IP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. Constrained Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16. Authors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document) . . . . . 21
16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . 21
16.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . 21
17. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Introduction
This document defines common functionality required from both IPv6
hosts and routers. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional or
additional features, but this document collects and summarizes
requirements from other published Standards Track documents in one
place.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details and
references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an
applicability statement and to provide guidance as to which IPv6
specifications should be implemented in the general case and which
specifications may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios.
This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs.
Although this document points to different specifications, it should
be noted that in many cases, the granularity of a particular
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
requirement will be smaller than a single specification, as many
specifications define multiple, independent pieces, some of which may
not be mandatory. In addition, most specifications define both
client and server behavior in the same specification, while many
implementations will be focused on only one of those roles.
This document defines a minimal level of requirement needed for a
device to provide useful internet service and considers a broad range
of device types and deployment scenarios. Because of the wide range
of deployment scenarios, the minimal requirements specified in this
document may not be sufficient for all deployment scenarios. It is
perfectly reasonable (and indeed expected) for other profiles to
define additional or stricter requirements appropriate for specific
usage and deployment environments. For example, this document does
not mandate that all clients support DHCP, but some deployment
scenarios may deem it appropriate to make such a requirement. For
example, government agencies in the USA have defined profiles for
specialized requirements for IPv6 in target environments (see
[USGv6]).
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
that they should adhere to Jon Postel's Robustness Principle: "Be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others" [RFC0793].
1.1. Scope of This Document
IPv6 covers many specifications. It is intended that IPv6 will be
deployed in many different situations and environments. Therefore,
it is important to develop requirements for IPv6 nodes to ensure
interoperability.
This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
requirements specified here.
1.2. Description of IPv6 Nodes
From the Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460],
we have the following definitions:
IPv6 node - a device that implements IPv6.
IPv6 router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly
addressed to itself.
IPv6 host - any node that is not a router.
**BIS We will need to refer to 2460-bis, as well as 1981-bis and
4291-bis, throughout this document. These are still in flux, but we
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
will know the final versions of these documents before this -bis is
published, so can adapt text here once those updates are complete.**
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Abbreviations Used in This Document
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
AH Authentication Header
DAD Duplicate Address Detection
ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
IKE Internet Key Exchange
MIB Management Information Base
MLD Multicast Listener Discovery
MTU Maximum Transmission Unit
NA Neighbor Advertisement
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
4. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
specifications. Which link-layer specifications an implementation
should include will depend upon what link-layers are supported by the
hardware available on the system. It is possible for a conformant
IPv6 node to support IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on
others.
As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
specifications will be issued. In the following, we list some of the
layer 2 technologies for which an IPv6 specification has been
developed. It is provided for informational purposes only and may
not be complete.
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464]
- IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification [RFC2590]
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks [RFC3146]
- Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
Packets over Fibre Channel [RFC4338]
- Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]
- Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer over IEEE
802.16 Networks [RFC5121]
- IP version 6 over PPP [RFC5072]
- IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks [RFC4944]
In addition to traditional physical link-layers, it is also possible
to tunnel IPv6 over other protocols. Examples include:
- Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address
Translations (NATs) [RFC4380]
- Section 3 of "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and
Routers" [RFC4213]
**BIS Do we want a small section somewhere on UDP IPv6 tunneling, and
issues like RFC 6935, or 6936?**
5. IP Layer
5.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC 2460
The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC2460]. This
specification MUST be supported.
**BIS Again, update for RFC 2460 -bis **
Any unrecognized extension headers or options MUST be processed as
described 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
headers. All conformant IPv6 implementations MUST be capable of
sending and receiving IPv6 packets; the forwarding functionality MAY
be supported. Overlapping fragments MUST be handled as described in
[RFC5722].
[RFC6946] discusses IPv6 atomic fragments, and recommends that IPv6
atomic fragments are processed independently of any other fragments,
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
to protect against fragmenttation-based attacks. [RFC8021] goes
further and recommends the deprecation of atomic fragments. Nodes
thus MUST not generate atomic fragments.
To mitigate a variety of potential attacks, nodes SHOULD avoid using
predictable fragment Identification values in Fragment Headers, as
discussed in [RFC7739].
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers.
An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers. An exception is
Routing Header type 0 (RH0), which was deprecated by [RFC5095] due to
security concerns and which MUST be treated as an unrecognized
routing type.
Should a new type of Extension Header need to be defined, its format
MUST follow the consistent format described in Section 4 of
[RFC6564].
Further, [RFC7045] adds specific requirements for processing of
Extension Headers, in particular that any forwarding node along an
IPv6 packet's path, which forwards the packet for any reason, SHOULD
do so regardless of any extension headers that are present.
[RFC7112] discusses issues with oversized IPv6 Extension Header
chains, and states that when a node fragments an IPv6 datagram, it
MUST include the entire IPv6 Header Chain in the First Fragment.
**BIS Wait to see outcome of insertion of EHs issue in 2460-bis, and
re-state here? **
All nodes SHOULD support the setting and use of the IPv6 Flow Label
field as defined in the IPv6 Flow Label specification [RFC6437].
Forwarding nodes such as routers and load distributors MUST NOT
depend only on Flow Label values being uniformly distributed. It is
RECOMMENDED that source hosts support the flow label by setting the
Flow Label field for all packets of a given flow to the same value
chosen from an approximation to a discrete uniform distribution.
5.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Neighbor Discovery is defined in [RFC4861]; the definition was
updated by [RFC5942]. Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported. RFC
4861 states:
Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP
over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., Non-
Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or
mechanisms to implement those services will be specified (in the
appropriate document covering the operation of IP over a
particular link type). The services described in this document
that are not directly dependent on multicast, such as Redirects,
next-hop determination, Neighbor Unreachability Detection, etc.,
are expected to be provided as specified in this document. The
details of how one uses ND on NBMA links are addressed in
[RFC2491].
Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:
Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
attached link. Hosts MUST support Router Discovery functionality.
Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
Hosts MUST support Prefix Discovery.
Hosts MUST also implement Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) for
all paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. NUD is not required
for paths between routers. However, all nodes MUST respond to
unicast Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages.
[RFC7048] discusses NUD, in particular cases where it behaves too
impatiently. It states that if a node transmits more than a certain
number of packets, then it SHOULD use the exponential backoff of the
retransmit timer, up to a certain threshold point.
Hosts MUST support the sending of Router Solicitations and the
receiving of Router Advertisements. The ability to understand
individual Router Advertisement options is dependent on supporting
the functionality making use of the particular option.
[RFC7559] discusses packet loss resliency for Router Solicitations,
and requires that nodes MUST use a specific exponential backoff
algorithm for RS retransmissions.
All nodes MUST support the sending and receiving of Neighbor
Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages. NS and
NA messages are required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).
Hosts SHOULD support the processing of Redirect functionality.
Routers MUST support the sending of Redirects, though not necessarily
for every individual packet (e.g., due to rate limiting). Redirects
are only useful on networks supporting hosts. In core networks
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
dominated by routers, Redirects are typically disabled. The sending
of Redirects SHOULD be disabled by default on backbone routers. They
MAY be enabled by default on routers intended to support hosts on
edge networks.
"IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311] includes additional
recommendations on how to select from a set of available routers.
[RFC4311] SHOULD be supported.
5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
"Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide
connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In
such cases, RFC 4191 can help.
Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers
adhering to [RFC7084] use RFC 4191 to advertise routes to certain
local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in
SOHO environments SHOULD implement RFC 4191.
5.4. SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) - RFC 3971
SEND [RFC3971] and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
[RFC3972] provide a way to secure the message exchanges of Neighbor
Discovery. SEND has the potential to address certain classes of
spoofing attacks, but it does not provide specific protection for
threats from off-link attackers. It requires relatively heavyweight
provisioning, so is only likely to be used in scenarios where
security considerations are particularly important.
There have been relatively few implementations of SEND in common
operating systems and platforms, and thus deployment experience has
been limited to date.
At this time, SEND is considered optional. Due to the complexity in
deploying SEND, its deployment is only likely to be considered where
nodes are operating in a particularly strict security environment.
5.5. IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option - RFC 5175
Router Advertisements include an 8-bit field of single-bit Router
Advertisement flags. The Router Advertisement Flags Option extends
the number of available flag bits by 48 bits. At the time of this
writing, 6 of the original 8 single-bit flags have been assigned,
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
while 2 remain available for future assignment. No flags have been
defined that make use of the new option, and thus, strictly speaking,
there is no requirement to implement the option today. However,
implementations that are able to pass unrecognized options to a
higher-level entity that may be able to understand them (e.g., a
user-level process using a "raw socket" facility) MAY take steps to
handle the option in anticipation of a future usage.
5.6. Path MTU Discovery and Packet Size
5.6.1. Path MTU Discovery - RFC 1981
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6" [RFC1981] SHOULD be supported.
From [RFC2460]:
It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU
Discovery [RFC1981], in order to discover and take advantage of
path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6
implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to
sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit
implementation of Path MTU Discovery.
The rules in [RFC2460] and [RFC5722] MUST be followed for packet
fragmentation and reassembly.
One operational issue with Path MTU Discovery occurs when firewalls
block ICMP Packet Too Big messages. Path MTU Discovery relies on
such messages to determine what size messages can be successfully
sent. "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [RFC4821] avoids
having a dependency on Packet Too Big messages.
**BIS Add note about 1280 MTU and UDP, as per Mark Andrews' comments
in Berlin? **
5.7. IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC 2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an optional extension that allow the
sending of IP datagrams larger than 65.535 bytes. IPv6 Jumbograms
make use of IPv6 hop-by-hop options and are only suitable on paths in
which every hop and link are capable of supporting Jumbograms (e.g.,
within a campus or datacenter). To date, few implementations exist,
and there is essentially no reported experience from usage.
Consequently, IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] remain optional at this time.
**BIS Are these used? Do we need to modify the text for that? **
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
5.8. ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC 4443
ICMPv6 [RFC4443] MUST be supported. "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-
Part Messages" [RFC4884] MAY be supported.
5.9. Addressing
5.9.1. IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC 4291
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] MUST be supported.
**BIS Update to 4291-bis **
**BIS Add note on Why /64? RFC 7421, after the conclusion of the
RFC4291-bis (lengthy!!!) discussions on the 64-bit IID topic. But no
need for /127 p2p text RFC 6164. And no need for note on IID
significance, as per RFC 7136. **
5.9.2. Host Address Availability Recommendations
Hosts may be configured with addresses through a variety of methods,
including SLAAC, DHCPv6, or manual configuration.
[RFC7934] recommends that networks provide general-purpose end hosts
with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and it
describes the benefits of and the options for doing so. There are,
for example, benefits to multiple addresses for privacy reasons, or
to assigning hosts a whole /64 to avoid the need for host-based NAT.
5.9.3. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862
Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as
defined in either [RFC4862] or [RFC7217]. It is recommended that,
unless there is a specific requirement for MAC addresses to be
embedded in an IID, nodes follow the procedure in RFC7217 to generate
SLAAC-based addresses. Addresses generated through RFC7217 will be
the same whenever a given device (re)appears on the same subnet (with
a specific IPv6 prefix), but the IID will vary on each subnet
visited.
Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses
as described in [RFC4862].
From RFC 4862:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
configured by some other means. However, it is expected that
routers will generate link-local addresses using the mechanism
described in this document. In addition, routers are expected to
successfully pass the Duplicate Address Detection procedure
described in this document on all addresses prior to assigning
them to an interface.
All nodes MUST implement Duplicate Address Detection. Quoting from
Section 5.4 of RFC 4862:
Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast
addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of
whether they are obtained through stateless autoconfiguration,
DHCPv6, or manual configuration, with the following [exceptions
noted therein].
"Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6" [RFC4429]
specifies a mechanism to reduce delays associated with generating
addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. RFC
4429 was developed in conjunction with Mobile IPv6 in order to reduce
the time needed to acquire and configure addresses as devices quickly
move from one network to another, and it is desirable to minimize
transition delays. For general purpose devices, RFC 4429 remains
optional at this time.
[RFC7527] discusses enhanced DAD, and describes an algorithm to
automate the detection of looped back IPv6 ND messages used by DAD.
Nodes SHOULD implement this behaviour where such detection is
beneficial.
5.9.4. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941
A node using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] to form a
globally unique IPv6 address using its MAC address to generate the
IID will see that IID remain the same on any visited network, even
though the network prefix part changes. Thus it is possible for 3rd
party devices such nodes communicate with to track the activities of
the node as it moves around the network. Privacy Extensions for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] address this concern by
allowing nodes to configure an additional temporary address where the
IID is effectively randomly generated. Privacy addresses are then
used as source addresses for new communications initiated by the
node.
[RFC7721] discusses general privacy issues with IPv6 addressing.
RFC 4941 SHOULD be supported. In some scenarios, such as dedicated
servers in a data center, it provides limited or no benefit, or may
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
complicate network management. Thus devices implementing this
specification MUST provide a way for the end user to explicitly
enable or disable the use of such temporary addresses.
Note that RFC4941 can be used independently of traditional SLAAC, or
of RFC7217-based SLAAC.
Implementers of RFC 4941 should be aware that certain addresses are
reserved and should not be chosen for use as temporary addresses.
Consult "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453] for more
details.
5.9.5. Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC 6724
IPv6 nodes will invariably have multiple addresses configured
simultaneously, and thus will need to choose which addresses to use
for which communications. The rules specified in the Default Address
Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] document MUST be implemented.
5.9.6. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
DHCPv6 [RFC3315] can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In
general, a network may provide for the configuration of addresses
through Router Advertisements, DHCPv6, or both. There will be a wide
range of IPv6 deployment models and differences in address assignment
requirements, some of which may require DHCPv6 for stateful address
assignment. Consequently, all hosts SHOULD implement address
configuration via DHCPv6.
In the absence of a router, IPv6 nodes using DHCP for address
assignment MAY initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other
configuration information, as described in Section 5.5.2 of
[RFC4862].
5.10. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
**BIS MLDv2 only?
Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1
[RFC2710]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive
and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used
on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and
requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses.
MLDv2 [RFC3810] extends the functionality of MLDv1 by supporting
Source-Specific Multicast. The original MLDv2 protocol [RFC3810]
supporting Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] supports two types of
"filter modes". Using an INCLUDE filter, a node indicates a
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
multicast group along with a list of senders for the group from which
it wishes to receive traffic. Using an EXCLUDE filter, a node
indicates a multicast group along with a list of senders from which
it wishes to exclude receiving traffic. In practice, operations to
block source(s) using EXCLUDE mode are rarely used but add
considerable implementation complexity to MLDv2. Lightweight MLDv2
[RFC5790] is a simplified subset of the original MLDv2 specification
that omits EXCLUDE filter mode to specify undesired source(s).
Nodes SHOULD implement either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2
[RFC5790]. Specifically, nodes supporting applications using Source-
Specific Multicast that expect to take advantage of MLDv2's EXCLUDE
functionality [RFC3810] MUST support MLDv2 as defined in [RFC3810],
[RFC4604], and [RFC4607]. Nodes supporting applications that expect
to only take advantage of MLDv2's INCLUDE functionality as well as
Any-Source Multicast will find it sufficient to support Lightweight
MLDv2 as defined in [RFC5790].
If a node only supports applications that use Any-Source Multicast
(i.e, they do not use Source-Specific Multicast), implementing MLDv1
[RFC2710] is sufficient. In all cases, however, nodes are strongly
encouraged to implement MLDv2 or Lightweight MLDv2 rather than MLDv1,
as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that
all other nodes on the link operate in version 1 compatibility mode.
When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be
followed.
6. DHCP versus Router Advertisement Options for Host Configuration
**BIS this section probably needs rewriting **
In IPv6, there are two main protocol mechanisms for propagating
configuration information to hosts: Router Advertisements (RAs) and
DHCP. Historically, RA options have been restricted to those deemed
essential for basic network functioning and for which all nodes are
configured with exactly the same information. Examples include the
Prefix Information Options, the MTU option, etc. On the other hand,
DHCP has generally been preferred for configuration of more general
parameters and for parameters that may be client-specific. That
said, identifying the exact line on whether a particular option
should be configured via DHCP versus an RA option has not always been
easy. Generally speaking, however, there has been a desire to define
only one mechanism for configuring a given option, rather than
defining multiple (different) ways of configuring the same
information.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
One issue with having multiple ways of configuring the same
information is that interoperability suffers if a host chooses one
mechanism but the network operator chooses a different mechanism.
For "closed" environments, where the network operator has significant
influence over what devices connect to the network and thus what
configuration mechanisms they support, the operator may be able to
ensure that a particular mechanism is supported by all connected
hosts. In more open environments, however, where arbitrary devices
may connect (e.g., a WIFI hotspot), problems can arise. To maximize
interoperability in such environments, hosts would need to implement
multiple configuration mechanisms to ensure interoperability.
7. DNS and DHCP
7.1. DNS
DNS is described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC3363], and [RFC3596].
Not all nodes will need to resolve names; those that will never need
to resolve DNS names do not need to implement resolver functionality.
However, the ability to resolve names is a basic infrastructure
capability on which applications rely, and most nodes will need to
provide support. All nodes SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC1034]
functionality, as in [RFC1034], Section 5.3.1, with support for:
- AAAA type Resource Records [RFC3596];
- reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC3596];
- Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) [RFC2671] to allow for DNS
packet sizes larger than 512 octets.
Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extensions
[RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035].
A6 Resource Records, which were only ever defined with Experimental
status in [RFC3363], are now classified as Historic, as per
[RFC6563].
**BIS Add DNS-SD? **
7.2. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
7.2.1. Other Configuration Information
IPv6 nodes use DHCP [RFC3315] to obtain address configuration
information (see Section 5.9.6) and to obtain additional (non-
address) configuration. If a host implementation supports
applications or other protocols that require configuration that is
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
only available via DHCP, hosts SHOULD implement DHCP. For
specialized devices on which no such configuration need is present,
DHCP may not be necessary.
An IPv6 node can use the subset of DHCP (described in [RFC3736]) to
obtain other configuration information.
7.2.2. Use of Router Advertisements in Managed Environments
Nodes using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
are expected to determine their default router information and on-
link prefix information from received Router Advertisements. There
is no defined DHCPv6 Gateway option.
7.3. IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration - RFC 6106
Router Advertisements have historically limited options to those that
are critical to basic IPv6 functioning. Originally, DNS
configuration was not included as an RA option, and DHCP was the
recommended way to obtain DNS configuration information. Over time,
the thinking surrounding such an option has evolved. It is now
generally recognized that few nodes can function adequately without
having access to a working DNS resolver. [RFC5006] was published as
an Experimental document in 2007, and recently, a revised version was
placed on the Standards Track [RFC6106].
Implementations SHOULD implement the DNS RA option [RFC6106].
8. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
8.1. Transition Mechanisms
8.1.1. Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC
4213
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then [RFC4213]
MUST be supported.
9. Application Support
9.1. Textual Representation of IPv6 Addresses - RFC 5952
Software that allows users and operators to input IPv6 addresses in
text form SHOULD support "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text
Representation" [RFC5952].
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
9.2. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)
There are a number of IPv6-related APIs. This document does not
mandate the use of any, because the choice of API does not directly
relate to on-the-wire behavior of protocols. Implementers, however,
would be advised to consider providing a common API or reviewing
existing APIs for the type of functionality they provide to
applications.
"Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC3493] provides IPv6
functionality used by typical applications. Implementers should note
that RFC3493 has been picked up and further standardized by the
Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) [POSIX].
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for IPv6"
[RFC3542] provides access to advanced IPv6 features needed by
diagnostic and other more specialized applications.
"IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection" [RFC5014] provides
facilities that allow an application to override the default Source
Address Selection rules of [RFC6724].
"Socket Interface Extensions for Multicast Source Filters" [RFC3678]
provides support for expressing source filters on multicast group
memberships.
"Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4584] provides
application support for accessing and enabling Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275]
features.
10. Cellular Host
IPv6 for 3GPP [RFC7066] lists IPv6 Functionalities that need to be
implemented above and beyond the recommendations in this document.
Additionally a 3GPP IPv6 Host MAY implement [RFC7278] for delivering
IPv6 prefixes on the LAN link.
11. Security
This section describes the specification for security for IPv6 nodes.
Achieving security in practice is a complex undertaking. Operational
procedures, protocols, key distribution mechanisms, certificate
management approaches, etc., are all components that impact the level
of security actually achieved in practice. More importantly,
deficiencies or a poor fit in any one individual component can
significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of a particular
security approach.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
IPsec provides channel security at the Internet layer, making it
possible to provide secure communication for all (or a subset of)
communication flows at the IP layer between pairs of internet nodes.
IPsec provides sufficient flexibility and granularity that individual
TCP connections can (selectively) be protected, etc.
Although IPsec can be used with manual keying in some cases, such
usage has limited applicability and is not recommended.
A range of security technologies and approaches proliferate today
(e.g., IPsec, Transport Layer Security (TLS), Secure SHell (SSH),
etc.) No one approach has emerged as an ideal technology for all
needs and environments. Moreover, IPsec is not viewed as the ideal
security technology in all cases and is unlikely to displace the
others.
Previously, IPv6 mandated implementation of IPsec and recommended the
key management approach of IKE. This document updates that
recommendation by making support of the IPsec Architecture [RFC4301]
a SHOULD for all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture
requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of RFC 4301) the implementation of both
manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default
automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2 [RFC5996].
This document recognizes that there exists a range of device types
and environments where approaches to security other than IPsec can be
justified. For example, special-purpose devices may support only a
very limited number or type of applications, and an application-
specific security approach may be sufficient for limited management
or configuration capabilities. Alternatively, some devices may run
on extremely constrained hardware (e.g., sensors) where the full
IPsec Architecture is not justified.
**BIS Add note on security in IPv4-only networks? RFC 7123?
Relevant? **
11.1. Requirements
"Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC4301] SHOULD be
supported by all IPv6 nodes. Note that the IPsec Architecture
requires (e.g., Section 4.5 of [RFC4301]) the implementation of both
manual and automatic key management. Currently, the default
automated key management protocol to implement is IKEv2. As required
in [RFC4301], IPv6 nodes implementing the IPsec Architecture MUST
implement ESP [RFC4303] and MAY implement AH [RFC4302].
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
11.2. Transforms and Algorithms
The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for the IPsec
Architecture are defined in "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements For ESP and AH" [RFC4835]. IPv6 nodes implementing the
IPsec Architecture MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4835].
Preferred cryptographic algorithms often change more frequently than
security protocols. Therefore, implementations MUST allow for
migration to new algorithms, as RFC 4835 is replaced or updated in
the future.
**BIS update to 7321bis**
The current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for IKEv2 are
defined in "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key
Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" [RFC4307]. IPv6 nodes implementing IKEv2
MUST conform to the requirements in [RFC4307] and/or any future
updates or replacements to [RFC4307].
**BIS update to 4307bis**
12. Router-Specific Functionality
This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routing-
specific requirements; for the case of typical home routers,
[RFC7084] defines basic requirements for customer edge routers.
**BIS Sync here with work by John Brzozowski et al. in draft-ali-
ipv6rtr-reqs-02**
12.1. IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC 2711
The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g., RSVP
[RFC2205] or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710]). The
Router Alert option will need to be implemented whenever protocols
that mandate its usage (e.g., MLD) are implemented. See
Section 5.10.
12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861
Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations
MUST be supported.
Section 7 of [RFC6275] includes some mobility-specific extensions to
Neighbor Discovery. Routers SHOULD implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5,
even if they do not implement Home Agent functionality.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
12.3. Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or [RFC4862]) can provide
configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared
link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site.
Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different
links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers.
In simple deployments, consisting of a single router and either a
single LAN or multiple LANs attached to the single router, together
with a WAN connection, a DHCP server embedded within the router is
one common deployment scenario (e.g., [RFC7084]). However, there is
no need for relay agents in such scenarios.
In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or
service provider networks, the use of DHCP requires some level of
configuration, in order to configure relay agents, DHCP servers, etc.
In such environments, the DHCP server might even be run on a
traditional server, rather than as part of a router.
Because of the wide range of deployment scenarios, support for DHCP
server functionality on routers is optional. However, routers
targeted for deployment within more complex scenarios (as described
above) SHOULD support relay agent functionality. Note that "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" [RFC7084] requires
implementation of a DHCPv6 server function in IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
routers.
13. Network Management
Network management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6
nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
possible way of controlling these nodes.
**BIS This is a little thin. Add Netconf, restconf, yang models? **
**BIS add the network polling/syslod nd for none DHCPv6 network
tracking.**
13.1. Management Information Base (MIB) Modules
**BIS Address MIB Obsolete draft
The following two MIB modules SHOULD be supported by nodes that
support a Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agent.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
13.1.1. IP Forwarding Table MIB
The IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC4292] SHOULD be supported by nodes
that support an SNMP agent.
13.1.2. Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
The IP MIB [RFC4293] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
SNMP agent.
14. Constrained Devices
**BIS Should we add notes on constrained devices, and power
efficiency here in a new section? Talk about resource management in
nodes. Low power operation.
15. Security Considerations
This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet,
beyond the security considerations associated with the individual
protocols.
Security is also discussed in Section 11 above.
16. Authors and Acknowledgments
16.1. Authors and Acknowledgments (Current Document)
For this version of the IPv6 Node Requirements document, the authors
would like to thank **BIS Add new acknowledgements for significant
comments ** for their contributions.
16.2. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 6434
Ed Jankiewicz and Thomas Narten were named authors of the previous
iteration of this document, RFC6434.
For this version of the document, the authors thanked Hitoshi Asaeda,
Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Ralph Droms, Sheila Frankel, Sam Hartman,
Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Pekka Savola, Yaron Sheffer, and Dave
Thaler.
16.3. Authors and Acknowledgments from RFC 4294
The original version of this document (RFC 4294) was written by the
IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
Jari Arkko
jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Marc Blanchet
marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca
Samita Chakrabarti
samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com
Alain Durand
alain.durand@sun.com
Gerard Gastaud
gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr
Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
itojun@iijlab.net
Atsushi Inoue
inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Masahiro Ishiyama
masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
John Loughney
john.loughney@nokia.com
Rajiv Raghunarayan
raraghun@cisco.com
Shoichi Sakane
shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com
Dave Thaler
dthaler@windows.microsoft.com
Juha Wiljakka
juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian
Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas
Narten, Juha Ollila, and Pekka Savola for their comments. Thanks to
Mark Andrews for comments and corrections on DNS text. Thanks to
Alfred Hoenes for tracking the updates to various RFCs.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
17. Appendix: Changes from RFC 6434
There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the
changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
list of all changes.
1. Added 6LoWPAN to link layers
2. Removed DOD IPv6 Profile updates
3. Removed IPv6 Mobility RFC6275
18. Appendix: Changes from RFC 4294
There have been many editorial clarifications as well as significant
additions and updates. While this section highlights some of the
changes, readers should not rely on this section for a comprehensive
list of all changes.
1. Updated the Introduction to indicate that this document is an
applicability statement and is aimed at general nodes.
2. Significantly updated the section on Mobility protocols, adding
references and downgrading previous SHOULDs to MAYs.
3. Changed Sub-IP Layer section to just list relevant RFCs, and
added some more RFCs.
4. Added section on SEND (it is a MAY).
5. Revised section on Privacy Extensions [RFC4941] to add more
nuance to recommendation.
6. Completely revised IPsec/IKEv2 section, downgrading overall
recommendation to a SHOULD.
7. Upgraded recommendation of DHCPv6 to SHOULD.
8. Added background section on DHCP versus RA options, added SHOULD
recommendation for DNS configuration via RAs [RFC6106], and
cleaned up DHCP recommendations.
9. Added recommendation that routers implement Sections 7.3 and 7.5
of [RFC6275].
10. Added pointer to subnet clarification document [RFC5942].
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
11. Added text that "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing" [RFC4311]
SHOULD be implemented.
12. Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
it a MUST to implement.
13. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
14. Removed mention of "DNAME" from the discussion about [RFC3363].
15. Numerous updates to reflect newer versions of IPv6 documents,
including [RFC4443], [RFC4291], [RFC3596], and [RFC4213].
16. Removed discussion of "Managed" and "Other" flags in RAs. There
is no consensus at present on how to process these flags, and
discussion of their semantics was removed in the most recent
update of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].
17. Added many more references to optional IPv6 documents.
18. Made "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"
[RFC5952] a SHOULD.
19. Added reference to [RFC5722] (Overlapping Fragments), and made
it a MUST to implement.
20. Updated MLD section to include reference to Lightweight MLD
[RFC5790].
21. Added SHOULD recommendation for "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191].
22. Made "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" [RFC6437] a SHOULD.
19. References
19.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, DOI 10.17487/RFC2671, August 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2671>.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3590, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3590>.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736,
April 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3736>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4292, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4292>.
[RFC4293] Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, DOI 10.17487/RFC4293,
April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4293>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
[RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4307, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4307>.
[RFC4311] Hinden, R. and D. Thaler, "IPv6 Host-to-Router Load
Sharing", RFC 4311, DOI 10.17487/RFC4311, November 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4311>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4835, April 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4835>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 5453, DOI 10.17487/RFC5453, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5453>.
[RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
RFC 5722, DOI 10.17487/RFC5722, December 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5722>.
[RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>.
[RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 5996, DOI 10.17487/RFC5996, September 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5996>.
[RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 6106, DOI 10.17487/RFC6106, November 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6106>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC6946] Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments",
RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC6946, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6946>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7048, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7048>.
[RFC7112] Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of
Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7112>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7527] Asati, R., Singh, H., Beebee, W., Pignataro, C., Dart, E.,
and W. George, "Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection",
RFC 7527, DOI 10.17487/RFC7527, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7527>.
[RFC7559] Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss
Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7559, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559>.
[RFC7739] Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment
Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC7739,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7739>.
[RFC8021] Gont, F., Liu, W., and T. Anderson, "Generation of IPv6
Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful", RFC 8021,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8021, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8021>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
19.2. Informative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
RFC 2491, DOI 10.17487/RFC2491, January 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2491>.
[RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
Networks", RFC 2492, DOI 10.17487/RFC2492, January 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2492>.
[RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC2590, May 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC3146,
October 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>.
[RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3363, August 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3363>.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
[RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
IPv6", RFC 3542, DOI 10.17487/RFC3542, May 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3542>.
[RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3678, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3678>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
November 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of
IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets
over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, DOI 10.17487/RFC4338,
January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.
[RFC4584] Chakrabarti, S. and E. Nordmark, "Extension to Sockets API
for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4584, DOI 10.17487/RFC4584, July
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4584>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC5006] Jeong, J., Ed., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuration",
RFC 5006, DOI 10.17487/RFC5006, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5006>.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.
[RFC5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.
[RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>.
[RFC6563] Jiang, S., Conrad, D., and B. Carpenter, "Moving A6 to
Historic Status", RFC 6563, DOI 10.17487/RFC6563, March
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6563>.
[RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
[RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
/64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7721] Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy
Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.
[RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi,
"Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204,
RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>.
[POSIX] IEEE, "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information
Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX),
ISO/IEC 9945:2009", <http://www.ieee.org>.
[USGv6] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "A Profile
for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0", July 2008,
<http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/usgv6-v1.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses
Tim Chown
Jisc
Lumen House, Library Avenue
Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0SG
United Kingdom
Email: tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk
John Loughney
Nokia
200 South Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
USA
Phone: +1 650 283 8068
Email: john.loughney@nokia.com
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Node Requirements March 2017
Tim Winters
University of New Hampshire
InterOperability Laboratory
Durham NH
United States
Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu
Chown, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 34]
