Internet DRAFT - draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis
draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis
IPv6 Operations (v6ops) J. Palet Martinez
Internet-Draft Consulintel, S.L.
Obsoletes: 7084 (if approved) March 31, 2017
Intended status: Informational
Expires: October 2, 2017
Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
draft-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00
Abstract
This document specifies requirements for an IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
router. Specifically, the current version of this document focuses
on the basic provisioning of an IPv6 CE router and the provisioning
of IPv6 hosts attached to it. The document also covers several
transition technologies, as required in a world where IPv4 addresses
are no longer available, so hosts in the customer LANs with IPv4-only
or IPv6-only applications or devices, requiring to communicate with
IPv4-only services at the Internet, are able to do so. The document
obsoletes RFC 7084.
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 October 2, 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
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Current IPv4 End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . 6
4.2. IPv6 End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Local Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. WAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Transition Technologies Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4.2. 6in4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4.3. 6rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.4. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4.5. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4.6. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4.7. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.5. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. ANNEX A: Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. ANNEX B: Changes from RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
This document defines basic IPv6 features for a residential or small-
office router, referred to as an "IPv6 CE router", in order to
establish an industry baseline for features to be implemented on such
a router.
These routers typically also support IPv4, at least in the LAN side.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
This document specifies how an IPv6 CE router automatically
provisions its WAN interface, acquires address space for provisioning
of its LAN interfaces, and fetches other configuration information
from the service provider network. Automatic provisioning of more
complex topology than a single router with multiple LAN interfaces is
out of scope for this document. In some cases, manual provisioning
may be acceptable, when intended for a small number of customers.
See [RFC4779] for a discussion of options available for deploying
IPv6 in service provider access networks.
This document also covers the IP transition technologies required in
a world where IPv4 addresses are no longer available, so the service
providers need to provision IPv6-only WAN access, while at the same
time ensuring that IPv4-only or IPv6-only devices or applications in
the customer LANs can still reach IPv4-only devices or applications
in Internet, which still don't have IPv6 support.
1.1. Requirements Language
Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST",
"MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as
described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This document uses these keywords
not strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the
purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality. As
such, the document points to several other specifications (preferable
in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers
regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a
successful CE router that interoperates successfully with a
particular subset of currently deploying and planned common IPv6
access networks.
2. Terminology
End-User Network one or more links attached to the IPv6 CE
router that connect IPv6 hosts.
IPv6 Customer Edge Router a node intended for home or small-office
use that forwards IPv6 packets not
explicitly addressed to itself. The IPv6
CE router connects the end-user network to
a service provider network. In other
documents, the CE is named as CPE (Customer
Premises Equipment or Customer Provided
Equipment). In the context of this
document, both terminologies are
synonymous.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
IPv6 Host any device implementing an IPv6 stack
receiving IPv6 connectivity through the
IPv6 CE router.
LAN Interface an IPv6 CE router's attachment to a link in
the end-user network. Examples are
Ethernet (simple or bridged), 802.11
wireless, or other LAN technologies. An
IPv6 CE router may have one or more
network-layer LAN interfaces.
Service Provider an entity that provides access to the
Internet. In this document, a service
provider specifically offers Internet
access using IPv6, and it may also offer
IPv4 Internet access. The service provider
can provide such access over a variety of
different transport methods such as FTTH,
DSL, cable, wireless, LTE, and others.
WAN Interface an IPv6 CE router's attachment to a link
used to provide connectivity to the service
provider network; example link technologies
include Ethernet (simple or bridged), PPP
links, Frame Relay, or ATM networks, as
well as Internet-layer (or higher-layer)
"tunnels", such as tunnels over IPv4 or
IPv6 itself.
3. Usage Scenarios
The IPv6 CE router described in this document is expected to be used
typically, in any of the following scenarios:
1. Residential/household users. Common usage is any kind of
Internet access (web, email, streaming, online gaming, etc.).
2. Residential with Small Office/Home Office (SOHO). Same usage as
for the first scenario.
3. Small Office/Home Office (SOHO). Same usage as for the first
scenario.
4. Small and Medium Enterprise (SME). Same usage as for the first
scenario.
5. Residential/household with advanced requirements. Same basic
usage as for the first scenario, however there may be
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
requirements for exporting services to the WAN (IP cameras, web,
DNS, email, VPN, etc.).
6. Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) with advanced requirements.
Same basic usage as for the first scenario, however there may be
requirements for exporting services to the WAN (IP cameras, web,
DNS, email, VPN, etc.).
The above list is not intended to be comprehensive of all the
possible usage scenarios, just the main ones. In fact, combinations
of the above usages are also possible, for example a residential with
SOHO and advanced requirements.
The mechanisms for exporting IPv6 services are commonly "naturally"
available in any IPv6 router, as when using GUA, unless they are
blocked by firewall rules, which may require some manual
configuration by means of a GUI and/or CLI.
However, in the case of IPv4, because the usage of private addresses
and NAT, it typically requires some degree of manual configuration
such as setting up a DMZ, virtual servers, or port/protocol
forwarding. In general, CE routers already provide GUI and/or CLI to
manually configure them, or the possibility to setup the CE in bridge
mode, so another CE behind it, takes care of that. It is out of the
scope of this document the definition of any requirements for that.
The main difference for an IPv6 CE router to support one or several
of the above indicated scenarios, is related to the packet processing
capabilities, performance, even other details such as the number of
WAN/LAN interfaces, their maximum speed, memory for keeping tables or
tracking connections, etc. So, it is out of the scope of this
document to classify them.
For example, an SME may have just 10 employees (micro-SME), which
commonly will be considered same as a SOHO, but a small SME can have
up to 50 employees, or 250 for a medium one. Depending on the IPv6
CE router capabilities or even how it is being configured (for
instance, using SLAAC or DHCPv6), it may support even a higher number
of employees if the traffic in the LANs is low, or switched by
another device(s), or the WAN bandwidth requirements are low, etc.
The actual bandwidth capabilities of access with technologies such as
FTTH, cable and even LTE, allows the support of such usages, and
indeed, is a very common situation that access networks and the CE
provided by the service provider are the same for SMEs and
residential users.
There is also no difference in terms of who actually provides the
IPv6 CE router. In most of the cases is the service provider, and in
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
fact is responsible, typically, of provisioning/managing at least the
WAN side. However, commonly the user has access to configure the LAN
interfaces, firewall, DMZ, and many other aspects. In fact, in many
cases, the user must supply, or at least can replace the IPv6 CE
router, which makes even more relevant that all the IPv6 CE routers,
support the same requirements defined in this document.
The IPv6 CE router described in this document is not intended for
usage in other scenarios such as bigger Enterprises, Data Centers,
Content Providers, etc. So, even if the documented requirements meet
their needs, may have additional requirements, which are out of the
scope of this document.
4. Architecture
4.1. Current IPv4 End-User Network Architecture
An end-user network will likely support both IPv4 and IPv6. It is
not expected that an end user will change their existing network
topology with the introduction of IPv6. There are some differences
in how IPv6 works and is provisioned; these differences have
implications for the network architecture. A typical IPv4 end-user
network consists of a "plug and play" router with NAT functionality
and a single link behind it, connected to the service provider
network.
A typical IPv4 NAT deployment by default blocks all incoming
connections. Opening of ports is typically allowed using a Universal
Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device (UPnP IGD) [UPnP-IGD] or some
other firewall control protocol.
Another consequence of using private address space in the end-user
network is that it provides stable addressing; that is, it never
changes even when you change service providers, and the addresses are
always there even when the WAN interface is down or the customer edge
router has not yet been provisioned.
Many existing routers support dynamic routing (which learns routes
from other routers), and advanced end-users can build arbitrary,
complex networks using manual configuration of address prefixes
combined with a dynamic routing protocol.
4.2. IPv6 End-User Network Architecture
The end-user network architecture for IPv6 should provide equivalent
or better capabilities and functionality than the current IPv4
architecture.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
The end-user network is a stub network. Figure 1 illustrates the
model topology for the end-user network.
+-------+-------+ \
| Service | \
| Provider | | Service
| Router | | Provider
+-------+-------+ | Network
| /
| Customer /
| Internet Connection /
|
+------+--------+ \
| IPv6 | \
| Customer Edge | \
| Router | /
+---+-------+-+-+ /
Network A | | Network B | End-User
---+-------------+----+- --+--+-------------+--- | Network(s)
| | | | \
+----+-----+ +-----+----+ +----+-----+ +-----+----+ \
|IPv6 Host | |IPv6 Host | | IPv6 Host| |IPv6 Host | /
| | | | | | | | /
+----------+ +-----+----+ +----------+ +----------+ /
Figure 1: An Example of a Typical End-User Network
This architecture describes the:
o Basic capabilities of an IPv6 CE router
o Provisioning of the WAN interface connecting to the service
provider
o Provisioning of the LAN interfaces
For IPv6 multicast traffic, the IPv6 CE router may act as a Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) proxy [RFC4605] and may support a dynamic
multicast routing protocol.
The IPv6 CE router may be manually configured in an arbitrary
topology with a dynamic routing protocol. Automatic provisioning and
configuration is described for a single IPv6 CE router only.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
4.2.1. Local Communication
Link-local IPv6 addresses are used by hosts communicating on a single
link. Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] are used
by hosts communicating within the end-user network across multiple
links, but without requiring the application to use a globally
routable address. The IPv6 CE router defaults to acting as the
demarcation point between two networks by providing a ULA boundary, a
multicast zone boundary, and ingress and egress traffic filters.
At the time of this writing, several host implementations do not
handle the case where they have an IPv6 address configured and no
IPv6 connectivity, either because the address itself has a limited
topological reachability (e.g., ULA) or because the IPv6 CE router is
not connected to the IPv6 network on its WAN interface. To support
host implementations that do not handle multihoming in a multi-prefix
environment [RFC7157], the IPv6 CE router should not, as detailed in
the requirements below, advertise itself as a default router on the
LAN interface(s) when it does not have IPv6 connectivity on the WAN
interface or when it is not provisioned with IPv6 addresses. For
local IPv6 communication, the mechanisms specified in [RFC4191] are
used.
ULA addressing is useful where the IPv6 CE router has multiple LAN
interfaces with hosts that need to communicate with each other. If
the IPv6 CE router has only a single LAN interface (IPv6 link), then
link-local addressing can be used instead.
Coexistence with IPv4 requires any IPv6 CE router(s) on the LAN to
conform to these recommendations, especially requirements ULA-5 and
L-4 below.
5. Requirements
5.1. General Requirements
The IPv6 CE router is responsible for implementing IPv6 routing; that
is, the IPv6 CE router must look up the IPv6 destination address in
its routing table to decide to which interface it should send the
packet.
In this role, the IPv6 CE router is responsible for ensuring that
traffic using its ULA addressing does not go out the WAN interface
and does not originate from the WAN interface.
G-1: An IPv6 CE router is an IPv6 node according to the IPv6 Node
Requirements specification [RFC6434].
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
G-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST implement ICMPv6 according to
[RFC4443]. In particular, point-to-point links MUST be handled
as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC4443].
G-3: The IPv6 CE router MUST NOT forward any IPv6 traffic between
its LAN interface(s) and its WAN interface until the router has
successfully completed the IPv6 address and the delegated
prefix acquisition process.
G-4: By default, an IPv6 CE router that has no default router(s) on
its WAN interface MUST NOT advertise itself as an IPv6 default
router on its LAN interfaces. That is, the "Router Lifetime"
field is set to zero in all Router Advertisement messages it
originates [RFC4861].
G-5: By default, if the IPv6 CE router is an advertising router and
loses its IPv6 default router(s) and/or detects loss of
connectivity on the WAN interface, it MUST explicitly
invalidate itself as an IPv6 default router on each of its
advertising interfaces by immediately transmitting one or more
Router Advertisement messages with the "Router Lifetime" field
set to zero [RFC4861].
5.2. WAN-Side Configuration
The IPv6 CE router will need to support connectivity to one or more
access network architectures. This document describes an IPv6 CE
router that is not specific to any particular architecture or service
provider and that supports all commonly used architectures.
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and DHCPv6 protocols operate over any type of
IPv6-supported link layer, and there is no need for a link-layer-
specific configuration protocol for IPv6 network-layer configuration
options as in, e.g., PPP IP Control Protocol (IPCP) for IPv4. This
section makes the assumption that the same mechanism will work for
any link layer, be it Ethernet, the Data Over Cable Service Interface
Specification (DOCSIS), PPP, or others.
WAN-side requirements:
W-1: When the router is attached to the WAN interface link, it MUST
act as an IPv6 host for the purposes of stateless [RFC4862] or
stateful [RFC3315] interface address assignment.
W-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST generate a link-local address and
finish Duplicate Address Detection according to [RFC4862] prior
to sending any Router Solicitations on the interface. The
source address used in the subsequent Router Solicitation MUST
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
be the link-local address on the WAN interface.
W-3: Absent other routing information, the IPv6 CE router MUST use
Router Discovery as specified in [RFC4861] to discover a
default router(s) and install a default route(s) in its routing
table with the discovered router's address as the next hop.
W-4: The router MUST act as a requesting router for the purposes of
DHCPv6 prefix delegation ([RFC3633]).
W-5: The IPv6 CE router MUST use a persistent DHCP Unique Identifier
(DUID) for DHCPv6 messages. The DUID MUST NOT change between
network-interface resets or IPv6 CE router reboots.
W-6: The WAN interface of the CE router SHOULD support a Port
Control Protocol (PCP) client as specified in [RFC6887] for use
by applications on the CE router. The PCP client SHOULD follow
the procedure specified in Section 8.1 of [RFC6887] to discover
its PCP server. This document takes no position on whether
such functionality is enabled by default or mechanisms by which
users would configure the functionality. Handling PCP requests
from PCP clients in the LAN side of the CE router is out of
scope.
Link-layer requirements:
WLL-1: If the WAN interface supports Ethernet encapsulation, then
the IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over Ethernet [RFC2464].
WLL-2: If the WAN interface supports PPP encapsulation, the IPv6 CE
router MUST support IPv6 over PPP [RFC5072].
WLL-3: If the WAN interface supports PPP encapsulation, in a dual-
stack environment with IPCP and IPV6CP running over one PPP
logical channel, the Network Control Protocols (NCPs) MUST be
treated as independent of each other and start and terminate
independently.
Address assignment requirements:
WAA-1: The IPv6 CE router MUST support Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862].
WAA-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST follow the recommendations in
Section 4 of [RFC5942], and in particular the handling of
the L flag in the Router Advertisement Prefix Information
option.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
WAA-3: The IPv6 CE router MUST support DHCPv6 [RFC3315] client
behavior.
WAA-4: The IPv6 CE router MUST be able to support the following
DHCPv6 options: Identity Association for Non-temporary
Address (IA_NA), Reconfigure Accept [RFC3315], and
DNS_SERVERS [RFC3646]. The IPv6 CE router SHOULD be able to
support the DNS Search List (DNSSL) option as specified in
[RFC3646].
WAA-5: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement the Network Time
Protocol (NTP) as specified in [RFC5905] to provide a time
reference common to the service provider for other
protocols, such as DHCPv6, to use. If the CE router
implements NTP, it requests the NTP Server DHCPv6 option
[RFC5908] and uses the received list of servers as primary
time reference, unless explicitly configured otherwise. LAN
side support of NTP is out of scope for this document.
WAA-6: If the IPv6 CE router receives a Router Advertisement
message (described in [RFC4861]) with the M flag set to 1,
the IPv6 CE router MUST do DHCPv6 address assignment
(request an IA_NA option).
WAA-7: If the IPv6 CE router does not acquire a global IPv6
address(es) from either SLAAC or DHCPv6, then it MUST create
a global IPv6 address(es) from its delegated prefix(es) and
configure those on one of its internal virtual network
interfaces, unless configured to require a global IPv6
address on the WAN interface.
WAA-8: The CE router MUST support the SOL_MAX_RT option [RFC7083]
and request the SOL_MAX_RT option in an Option Request
Option (ORO).
WAA-9: As a router, the IPv6 CE router MUST follow the weak host
(Weak End System) model [RFC1122]. When originating packets
from an interface, it will use a source address from another
one of its interfaces if the outgoing interface does not
have an address of suitable scope.
WAA-10: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement the Information Refresh
Time option and associated client behavior as specified in
[RFC4242].
Prefix delegation requirements:
WPD-1: The IPv6 CE router MUST support DHCPv6 prefix delegation
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
requesting router behavior as specified in [RFC3633]
(Identity Association for Prefix Delegation (IA_PD) option).
WPD-2: The IPv6 CE router MAY indicate as a hint to the delegating
router the size of the prefix it requires. If so, it MUST
ask for a prefix large enough to assign one /64 for each of
its interfaces, rounded up to the nearest nibble, and SHOULD
be configurable to ask for more.
WPD-3: The IPv6 CE router MUST be prepared to accept a delegated
prefix size different from what is given in the hint. If the
delegated prefix is too small to address all of its
interfaces, the IPv6 CE router SHOULD log a system management
error. [RFC6177] covers the recommendations for service
providers for prefix allocation sizes.
WPD-4: By default, the IPv6 CE router MUST initiate DHCPv6 prefix
delegation when either the M or O flags are set to 1 in a
received Router Advertisement (RA) message. Behavior of the
CE router to use DHCPv6 prefix delegation when the CE router
has not received any RA or received an RA with the M and the
O bits set to zero is out of scope for this document.
WPD-5: Any packet received by the CE router with a destination
address in the prefix(es) delegated to the CE router but not
in the set of prefixes assigned by the CE router to the LAN
must be dropped. In other words, the next hop for the
prefix(es) delegated to the CE router should be the null
destination. This is necessary to prevent forwarding loops
when some addresses covered by the aggregate are not
reachable [RFC4632].
(a) The IPv6 CE router SHOULD send an ICMPv6 Destination
Unreachable message in accordance with Section 3.1 of
[RFC4443] back to the source of the packet, if the
packet is to be dropped due to this rule.
WPD-6: If the IPv6 CE router requests both an IA_NA and an IA_PD
option in DHCPv6, it MUST accept an IA_PD option in DHCPv6
Advertise/Reply messages, even if the message does not
contain any addresses, unless configured to only obtain its
WAN IPv6 address via DHCPv6; see [RFC7550].
WPD-7: By default, an IPv6 CE router MUST NOT initiate any dynamic
routing protocol on its WAN interface.
WPD-8: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support the [RFC6603] Prefix
Exclude option.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
5.3. LAN-Side Configuration
The IPv6 CE router distributes configuration information obtained
during WAN interface provisioning to IPv6 hosts and assists IPv6
hosts in obtaining IPv6 addresses. It also supports connectivity of
these devices in the absence of any working WAN interface.
An IPv6 CE router is expected to support an IPv6 end-user network and
IPv6 hosts that exhibit the following characteristics:
1. Link-local addresses may be insufficient for allowing IPv6
applications to communicate with each other in the end-user
network. The IPv6 CE router will need to enable this
communication by providing globally scoped unicast addresses or
ULAs [RFC4193], whether or not WAN connectivity exists.
2. IPv6 hosts should be capable of using SLAAC and may be capable of
using DHCPv6 for acquiring their addresses.
3. IPv6 hosts may use DHCPv6 for other configuration information,
such as the DNS_SERVERS option for acquiring DNS information.
Unless otherwise specified, the following requirements apply to the
IPv6 CE router's LAN interfaces only.
ULA requirements:
ULA-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD be capable of generating a ULA
prefix [RFC4193].
ULA-2: An IPv6 CE router with a ULA prefix MUST maintain this prefix
consistently across reboots.
ULA-3: The value of the ULA prefix SHOULD be configurable.
ULA-4: By default, the IPv6 CE router MUST act as a site border
router according to Section 4.3 of [RFC4193] and filter
packets with local IPv6 source or destination addresses
accordingly.
ULA-5: An IPv6 CE router MUST NOT advertise itself as a default
router with a Router Lifetime greater than zero whenever all
of its configured and delegated prefixes are ULA prefixes.
LAN requirements:
L-1: The IPv6 CE router MUST support router behavior according to
Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 [RFC4861].
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
L-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST assign a separate /64 from its
delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide
ULA addressing) for each of its LAN interfaces.
L-3: An IPv6 CE router MUST advertise itself as a router for the
delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide
ULA addressing) using the "Route Information Option" specified
in Section 2.3 of [RFC4191]. This advertisement is
independent of having or not having IPv6 connectivity on the
WAN interface.
L-4: An IPv6 CE router MUST NOT advertise itself as a default
router with a Router Lifetime [RFC4861] greater than zero if
it has no prefixes configured or delegated to it.
L-5: The IPv6 CE router MUST make each LAN interface an advertising
interface according to [RFC4861].
L-6: In Router Advertisement messages ([RFC4861]), the Prefix
Information option's A and L flags MUST be set to 1 by
default.
L-7: The A and L flags' ([RFC4861]) settings SHOULD be user
configurable.
L-8: The IPv6 CE router MUST support a DHCPv6 server capable of
IPv6 address assignment according to [RFC3315] OR a stateless
DHCPv6 server according to [RFC3736] on its LAN interfaces.
L-9: Unless the IPv6 CE router is configured to support the DHCPv6
IA_NA option, it SHOULD set the M flag to zero and the O flag
to 1 in its Router Advertisement messages [RFC4861].
L-10: The IPv6 CE router MUST support providing DNS information in
the DHCPv6 DNS_SERVERS and DOMAIN_LIST options [RFC3646].
L-11: The IPv6 CE router MUST support providing DNS information in
the Router Advertisement Recursive DNS Server (RDNSS) and DNS
Search List options. Both options are specified in [RFC6106].
L-12: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD make available a subset of DHCPv6
options (as listed in Section 5.3 of [RFC3736]) received from
the DHCPv6 client on its WAN interface to its LAN-side DHCPv6
server.
L-13: If the delegated prefix changes, i.e., the current prefix is
replaced with a new prefix without any overlapping time
period, then the IPv6 CE router MUST immediately advertise the
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
old prefix with a Preferred Lifetime of zero and a Valid
Lifetime of either a) zero or b) the lower of the current
Valid Lifetime and two hours (which must be decremented in
real time) in a Router Advertisement message as described in
Section 5.5.3, (e) of [RFC4862].
L-14: The IPv6 CE router MUST send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable
message, code 5 (Source address failed ingress/egress policy)
for packets forwarded to it that use an address from a prefix
that has been invalidated.
L-15: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD provide HNCP (Home Networking
Control Protocol) services, as specified in [RFC7788].
5.4. Transition Technologies Support
5.4.1. 464XLAT
464XLAT [RFC6877] is a technique to provide IPv4 access service to
IPv6-only edge networks without encapsulation.
The CE router SHOULD support CLAT functionality. If 464XLAT is
supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6877]. The
following CE Requirements also apply:
464XLAT requirements:
464XLAT-1: The IPv6 CE router MUST perform IPv4 Network Address
Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic translated using the
CLAT, unless a dedicated /64 prefix has been acquired
using DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633].
464XLAT-2: The CE router MUST implement [RFC7050] in order to
discover the PLAT-side translation IPv4 and IPv6
prefix(es)/suffix(es). In environments with PCP support,
the CE SHOULD follow [RFC7225] to learn the PLAT-side
translation IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es) used by
an upstream PCP-controlled NAT64 device. Alternatively
SHOULD support draft-li-intarea-nat64-prefix-dhcp-option.
464XLAT-3: The CE router MUST implement a DNS proxy as described in
[RFC5625].
464XLAT-4: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP
4o6) transport described in [RFC7341].
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
5.4.2. 6in4
6in4 [RFC4213] specifies a tunneling mechanism to allow end-users to
manually configure IPv6 support via a service provider's IPv4 network
infrastructure.
The CE router MAY support 6in4 functionality. If 6rd is implemented,
6in4 MUST be supported as well. If 6in4 is supported, it MUST be
implemented according to [RFC4213]. The following CE Requirements
also apply:
6in4 requirements:
6IN4-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support 6in4 automated
configuration by means of the 6rd DHCPv4 Option 212. If the
CE router has obtained an IPv4 network address through some
other means such as PPP, it SHOULD use the DHCPINFORM
request message [RFC2131] to request the 6rd DHCPv4 Option.
The IPv6 CE router MAY use other mechanisms to configure
6in4 parameters. Such mechanisms are outside the scope of
this document.
6IN4-2: If the IPv6 CE router is capable of automated configuration
of IPv4 through IPCP (i.e., over a PPP connection), it MUST
support user-entered configuration of 6in4.
6IN4-3: If the CE router supports configuration mechanisms other
than the 6rd DHCPv4 Option 212 (user-entered, TR-069
[TR-069], etc.), the CE router MUST support 6in4 in "hub and
spoke" mode. 6in4 in "hub and spoke" requires all IPv6
traffic to go to the 6rd Border Relay. In effect, this
requirement removes the "direct connect to 6rd" route
defined in Section 7.1.1 of [RFC5969].
6IN4-4: A CE router MUST allow 6in4 and native IPv6 WAN interfaces
to be active alone as well as simultaneously in order to
support coexistence of the two technologies during an
incremental transition period such as a transition from 6in4
to native IPv6.
6IN4-5: Each packet sent on a 6in4 or native WAN interface MUST be
directed such that its source IP address is derived from the
delegated prefix associated with the particular interface
from which the packet is being sent (Section 4.3 of
[RFC3704]).
6IN4-6: The CE router MUST allow different as well as identical
delegated prefixes to be configured via each (6in4 or
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
native) WAN interface.
6IN4-7: In the event that forwarding rules produce a tie between
6in4 and native IPv6, by default, the IPv6 CE router MUST
prefer native IPv6.
5.4.3. 6rd
6rd [RFC5969] specifies an automatic tunneling mechanism tailored to
advance deployment of IPv6 to end users via a service provider's IPv4
network infrastructure. Key aspects include automatic IPv6 prefix
delegation to sites, stateless operation, simple provisioning, and
service that is equivalent to native IPv6 at the sites that are
served by the mechanism. It is expected that such traffic is
forwarded over the CE router's native IPv4 WAN interface and not
encapsulated in another tunnel.
The CE router MAY support 6rd functionality. If 6rd is supported, it
MUST be implemented according to [RFC5969]. The following CE
Requirements also apply:
6rd requirements:
6RD-1: The IPv6 CE router MUST support 6rd configuration via the 6rd
DHCPv4 Option 212. If the CE router has obtained an IPv4
network address through some other means such as PPP, it
SHOULD use the DHCPINFORM request message [RFC2131] to
request the 6rd DHCPv4 Option. The IPv6 CE router MAY use
other mechanisms to configure 6rd parameters. Such
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
6RD-2: If the IPv6 CE router is capable of automated configuration
of IPv4 through IPCP (i.e., over a PPP connection), it MUST
support user-entered configuration of 6rd.
6RD-3: If the CE router supports configuration mechanisms other than
the 6rd DHCPv4 Option 212 (user-entered, TR-069 [TR-069],
etc.), the CE router MUST support 6rd in "hub and spoke"
mode. 6rd in "hub and spoke" requires all IPv6 traffic to go
to the 6rd Border Relay. In effect, this requirement removes
the "direct connect to 6rd" route defined in Section 7.1.1 of
[RFC5969].
6RD-4: A CE router MUST allow 6rd and native IPv6 WAN interfaces to
be active alone as well as simultaneously in order to support
coexistence of the two technologies during an incremental
transition period such as a transition from 6rd to native
IPv6.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
6RD-5: Each packet sent on a 6rd or native WAN interface MUST be
directed such that its source IP address is derived from the
delegated prefix associated with the particular interface
from which the packet is being sent (Section 4.3 of
[RFC3704]).
6RD-6: The CE router MUST allow different as well as identical
delegated prefixes to be configured via each (6rd or native)
WAN interface.
6RD-7: In the event that forwarding rules produce a tie between 6rd
and native IPv6, by default, the IPv6 CE router MUST prefer
native IPv6.
5.4.4. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)
Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] enables both continued support for IPv4
services and incentives for the deployment of IPv6. It also
de-couples IPv6 deployment in the service provider network from the
rest of the Internet, making incremental deployment easier. Dual-
Stack Lite enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4
addresses among customers by combining two well-known technologies:
IP in IP (IPv4-in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation (NAT). It is
expected that DS-Lite traffic is forwarded over the CE router's
native IPv6 WAN interface, and not encapsulated in another tunnel.
The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement DS-Lite functionality. If
DS-Lite is supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6333].
This document takes no position on simultaneous operation of Dual-
Stack Lite and native IPv4. The following CE router requirements
also apply:
DS-Lite requirements:
DSLITE-1: The CE router MUST support configuration of DS-Lite via
the DS-Lite DHCPv6 option [RFC6334]. The IPv6 CE router
MAY use other mechanisms to configure DS-Lite parameters.
Such mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
DSLITE-2: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46 priority option
described in [RFC8026].
DSLITE-3: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP
4o6) transport described in [RFC7341].
DSLITE-4: The IPv6 CE router MUST NOT perform IPv4 Network Address
Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic encapsulated using DS-
Lite.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
DSLITE-5: If the IPv6 CE router is configured with an IPv4 address
on its WAN interface, then the IPv6 CE router SHOULD
disable the DS-Lite Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4) element.
5.4.5. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6)
Lw4o6 [RFC7596] specifies an extension to DS-Lite, which moves the
NAPT function from the DS-Lite tunnel concentrator to the tunnel
client located in the IPv6 CE router, removing the requirement for a
CGN function in the tunnel concentrator and reducing the amount of
centralized state.
The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement lw4o6 functionality. If DS-Lite
is implemented, lw4o6 MUST be supported as well. If lw4o6 is
supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7596]. This
document takes no position on simultaneous operation of lw4o6 and
native IPv4. The following CE router Requirements also apply:
Lw4o6 requirements:
LW4O6-1: The CE router MUST support configuration of lw4o6 via the
lw4o6 DHCPv6 options [RFC7598]. The IPv6 CE router MAY use
other mechanisms to configure lw4o6 parameters. Such
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
LW4O6-2: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46 priority option
described in [RFC8026].
LW4O6-3: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP
4o6) transport described in [RFC7341].
LW4O6-4: The IPv6 CE router MUST perform IPv4 Network Address
Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic encapsulated using lw4o6.
LW4O6-5: If the IPv6 CE router is configured with an IPv4 address on
its WAN interface, then the IPv6 CE router SHOULD disable
the Lightweight Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4) element.
5.4.6. MAP-E
MAP-E [RFC7597] is a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets across
an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, including a generic mechanism
for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses as well as
transport-layer ports.
The CE router SHOULD support MAP-E functionality. If MAP-E is
supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7597]. The
following CE Requirements also apply:
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
MAP-E requirements:
MAPE-1: The CE router MUST support configuration of MAP-E via the
MAP-E DHCPv6 options [RFC7598]. The IPv6 CE router MAY use
other mechanisms to configure MAP-E parameters. Such
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
MAPE-2: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46 priority option
described in [RFC8026].
MAPE-3: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6)
transport described in [RFC7341].
MAPE-4: The IPv6 CE router MUST perform IPv4 Network Address
Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic encapsulated using MAP-E.
5.4.7. MAP-T
MAP-T [RFC7599] is a mechanism similar to MAP-E, differing from it in
that MAP-T uses IPv4-IPv6 translation, rather than encapsulation, as
the form of IPv6 domain transport.
The CE router SHOULD support MAP-T functionality. If MAP-T is
supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7599]. The
following CE Requirements also apply:
MAP-T requirements:
MAPT-1: The CE router MUST support configuration of MAP-T via the
MAP-E DHCPv6 options [RFC7598]. The IPv6 CE router MAY use
other mechanisms to configure MAP-E parameters. Such
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
MAPT-2: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46 priority option
described in [RFC8026].
MAPT-3: The CE router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6)
transport described in [RFC7341].
MAPT-4: The IPv6 CE router MUST perform IPv4 Network Address
Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic translated using MAP-T.
5.5. IPv4 Multicast Support
Actual deployments support IPv4 multicast for services such as IPTV.
In the transition phase it is expected that multicast services will
still be provided using IPv4 to the customer LANs.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
In order to support the delivery of IPv4 multicast services to IPv4
clients over an IPv6 multicast network, the CE router SHOULD support
[RFC8114] and [RFC8115].
5.6. Security Considerations
It is considered a best practice to filter obviously malicious
traffic (e.g., spoofed packets, "Martian" addresses, etc.). Thus,
the IPv6 CE router ought to support basic stateless egress and
ingress filters. The CE router is also expected to offer mechanisms
to filter traffic entering the customer network; however, the method
by which vendors implement configurable packet filtering is beyond
the scope of this document.
Security requirements:
S-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support [RFC6092]. In particular,
the IPv6 CE router SHOULD support functionality sufficient for
implementing the set of recommendations in [RFC6092],
Section 4. This document takes no position on whether such
functionality is enabled by default or mechanisms by which
users would configure it.
S-2: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support ingress filtering in
accordance with BCP 38 [RFC2827]. Note that this requirement
was downgraded from a MUST from RFC 6204 due to the difficulty
of implementation in the CE router and the feature's redundancy
with upstream router ingress filtering.
S-3: If the IPv6 CE router firewall is configured to filter incoming
tunneled data, the firewall SHOULD provide the capability to
filter decapsulated packets from a tunnel.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair for his review and comments.
This document is an update of RFC7084, whose original authors were:
Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, Chris Donley and Barbara Stark. The rest
of the text on this section and the Contributors section, are the
original acknowledgements and Contributors sections of the earlier
version of this document.
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
guidance and feedback:
Mikael Abrahamsson, Tore Anderson, Merete Asak, Rajiv Asati, Scott
Beuker, Mohamed Boucadair, Rex Bullinger, Brian Carpenter, Tassos
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
Chatzithomaoglou, Lorenzo Colitti, Remi Denis-Courmont, Gert Doering,
Alain Durand, Katsunori Fukuoka, Brian Haberman, Tony Hain, Thomas
Herbst, Ray Hunter, Joel Jaeggli, Kevin Johns, Erik Kline, Stephen
Kramer, Victor Kuarsingh, Francois-Xavier Le Bail, Arifumi Matsumoto,
David Miles, Shin Miyakawa, Jean-Francois Mule, Michael Newbery,
Carlos Pignataro, John Pomeroy, Antonio Querubin, Daniel Roesen,
Hiroki Sato, Teemu Savolainen, Matt Schmitt, David Thaler, Mark
Townsley, Sean Turner, Bernie Volz, Dan Wing, Timothy Winters, James
Woodyatt, Carl Wuyts, and Cor Zwart.
This document is based in part on CableLabs' eRouter specification.
The authors wish to acknowledge the additional contributors from the
eRouter team:
Ben Bekele, Amol Bhagwat, Ralph Brown, Eduardo Cardona, Margo Dolas,
Toerless Eckert, Doc Evans, Roger Fish, Michelle Kuska, Diego
Mazzola, John McQueen, Harsh Parandekar, Michael Patrick, Saifur
Rahman, Lakshmi Raman, Ryan Ross, Ron da Silva, Madhu Sudan, Dan
Torbet, and Greg White.
7. Contributors
The following people have participated as co-authors or provided
substantial contributions to this document: Ralph Droms, Kirk
Erichsen, Fred Baker, Jason Weil, Lee Howard, Jean-Francois Tremblay,
Yiu Lee, John Jason Brzozowski, and Heather Kirksey. Thanks to Ole
Troan for editorship in the original RFC 6204 document.
8. ANNEX A: Code Considerations
One of the apparent main issues for vendors to include new
functionalities, such as support for new transition mechanisms, is
the lack of space in the flash (or equivalent) memory. However, it
has been confirmed from existing open source implementations
(OpenWRT/LEDE), that adding the support for the new transitions
mechanisms, requires around 10-12 Kbytes (because most of the code is
shared among several transition mechanisms), which typically means
about 0,15% of the existing code size in popular CEs in the market.
It is also clear that the new requirements don't have extra cost in
terms of RAM memory, neither other hardware requirements such as more
powerful CPUs.
The other issue seems to be the cost of developing the code for those
new functionalities. However at the time of writing this document,
it has been confirmed that there are several open source versions of
the required code for supporting the new transition mechanisms, so
the development cost is negligent, and only integration and testing
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
cost may become a minor issue.
9. ANNEX B: Changes from RFC7084
The -bis version of this document has some minor text edits here and
there. Significant updates are:
1. New section "Usage Scenarios".
2. Added support of HNCP ([RFC7788]) in LAN (L-15).
3. Added support of 464XLAT ([RFC6877]).
4. Added support of lw4o6 ([RFC7596]).
5. Added support of MAP-E ([RFC7597]) and MAP-T ([RFC7599]).
6. As the main scope of this document is the IPv6-only CE (IPv6-only
in the WAN link), the support of 6rd ([RFC5969]) has been changed
to MAY. 6in4 ([RFC4213]) support has been included as well in
case 6rd is supported, as it doesn't require additional code.
7. New section "IPv4 Multicast Support".
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[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>.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[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>.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[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>.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.
[RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, DOI 10.17487/RFC3704, March
2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[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>.
[RFC4242] Venaas, S., Chown, T., and B. Volz, "Information Refresh
Time Option for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 4242, DOI 10.17487/RFC4242, November
2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4242>.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
[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>.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605,
August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC4779] Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola, P., and
J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband
Access Networks", RFC 4779, DOI 10.17487/RFC4779, January
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4779>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
BCP 152, RFC 5625, DOI 10.17487/RFC5625, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5625>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC5908] Gayraud, R. and B. Lourdelet, "Network Time Protocol (NTP)
Server Option for DHCPv6", RFC 5908, DOI 10.17487/RFC5908,
June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5908>.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
[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>.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, DOI 10.17487/RFC5969, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5969>.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.
[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>.
[RFC6177] Narten, T., Huston, G., and L. Roberts, "IPv6 Address
Assignment to End Sites", BCP 157, RFC 6177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6177, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6177>.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.
[RFC6334] Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for Dual-Stack Lite",
RFC 6334, DOI 10.17487/RFC6334, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6334>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
[RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O.
Troan, "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
Delegation", RFC 6603, DOI 10.17487/RFC6603, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6603>.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC7083] Droms, R., "Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT
and INF_MAX_RT", RFC 7083, DOI 10.17487/RFC7083, November
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7083>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[RFC7341] Sun, Q., Cui, Y., Siodelski, M., Krishnan, S., and I.
Farrer, "DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) Transport",
RFC 7341, DOI 10.17487/RFC7341, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7341>.
[RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.
[RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
[RFC7598] Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Farrer, I., Perreault, S., Dec,
W., Bao, C., Yeh, L., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6 Options for
Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped
Clients", RFC 7598, DOI 10.17487/RFC7598, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7598>.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
[RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
[RFC8026] Boucadair, M. and I. Farrer, "Unified IPv4-in-IPv6
Softwire Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): A DHCPv6-Based
Prioritization Mechanism", RFC 8026, DOI 10.17487/RFC8026,
November 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8026>.
[RFC8114] Boucadair, M., Qin, C., Jacquenet, C., Lee, Y., and Q.
Wang, "Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients
over an IPv6 Multicast Network", RFC 8114,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8114, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8114>.
[RFC8115] Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Tsou, T., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6
Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6
Prefixes", RFC 8115, DOI 10.17487/RFC8115, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8115>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.
[RFC7157] Troan, O., Ed., Miles, D., Matsushima, S., Okimoto, T.,
and D. Wing, "IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address
Translation", RFC 7157, DOI 10.17487/RFC7157, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7157>.
[RFC7550] Troan, O., Volz, B., and M. Siodelski, "Issues and
Recommendations with Multiple Stateful DHCPv6 Options",
RFC 7550, DOI 10.17487/RFC7550, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7550>.
[TR-069] Broadband Forum, "CPE WAN Management Protocol", TR-069
Amendment 4, July 2011,
<http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/trlist.php>.
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE Router Requirements March 2017
[UPnP-IGD]
UPnP Forum, , "InternetGatewayDevice:2 Device Template
Version 1.01", December 2010,
<http://upnp.org/specs/gw/igd2/>.
Author's Address
Jordi Palet Martinez
Consulintel, S.L.
Molino de la Navata, 75
La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid 28420
Spain
EMail: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
URI: http://www.consulintel.es/
Palet Martinez Expires October 2, 2017 [Page 29]
