%% You should probably cite rfc7739 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01, number = {draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id/01/}, author = {Fernando Gont}, title = {{Security Implications of Predictable Fragment Identification Values}}, pagetotal = 16, year = 2014, month = apr, day = 30, abstract = {IPv6 specifies the Fragment Header, which is employed for the fragmentation and reassembly mechanisms. The Fragment Header contains an "Identification" field which, together with the IPv6 Source Address and the IPv6 Destination Address of a packet, identifies fragments that correspond to the same original datagram, such that they can be reassembled together at the receiving host. The only requirement for setting the "Identification" value is that it must be different than that employed for any other fragmented packet sent recently with the same Source Address and Destination Address. Some implementations use simple a global counter for setting the Identification field, thus leading to predictable values. This document analyzes the security implications of predictable Identification values, and updates RFC 2460 specifying additional requirements for setting the Identification field of the Fragment Header, such that the aforementioned security implications are mitigated.}, }