Skip to main content

IPv6 Node Requirements

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4294.
Author John A. Loughney
Last updated 2020-01-21 (Latest revision 2004-08-23)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Informational
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 4294 (Informational)
Action Holders
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Margaret Cullen
Send notices to (None)
IPv6 Working Group                                 John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft                                                  Nokia
                                                      August 23, 2004

Expires: February 22, 2005

                        IPv6 Node Requirements

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
   with RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.


   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.

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 1]


Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction
   1.1 Requirement Language
   1.2  Scope of this Document
   1.3  Description of IPv6 Nodes
   2.   Abbreviations Used in This Document
   3.   Sub-IP Layer
   3.1  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464
   3.2  IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472
   3.3  IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492
   4.   IP Layer
   4.1  Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460
   4.2  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461
   4.3  Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
   4.4  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463
   4.5  Addressing
   4.6  Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
   5.   DNS and DHCP
   5.1  DNS
   5.2  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
   6.   IPv4 Support and Transition
   6.1  Transition Mechanisms
   7.   Mobility
   8.   Security
   8.1  Basic Architecture
   8.2  Security Protocols
   8.3  Transforms and Algorithms
   8.4  Key Management Methods
   9.   Router Functionality
   9.1  General
   10.  Network Management
   10.1 MIBs
   11.  Security Considerations
   12.  References
   12.1 Normative
   12.2 Non-Normative
   13.  Authors and Acknowledgements
   14.  Editor's Address

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 2]


1. Introduction

   The goal of this document is to define the common functionality
   required from both IPv6 hosts and routers.  Many IPv6 nodes will
   implement optional or additional features, but this document
   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 informational in
   nature and does not update Standards Track RFCs.

   Although the document points to different specifications, it should
   be noted that in most cases, the granularity of requirements are
   smaller than a single specification, as many specifications define
   multiple, independent pieces, some of which may not be mandatory.

   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 [RFC-793].

1.1 Requirement Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-

1.2 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 the requirements for IPv6 nodes, in order
   to ensure interoperability.

   This document assumes that all IPv6 nodes meet the minimum
   requirements specified here.

1.3 Description of IPv6 Nodes

   From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we
   have the following definitions:

      Description of an IPv6 Node

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 3]


       - a device that implements IPv6

      Description of an IPv6 router

       - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to

      Description of an IPv6 Host

       - any node that is not a router.

2. 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 Transfer Unit

   NA    Neighbor Advertisement

   NBMA  Non-Broadcast Multiple Access

   ND    Neighbor Discovery

   NS    Neighbor Solicitation

   NUD   Neighbor Unreachability Detection

   PPP   Point-to-Point Protocol

   PVC   Permanent Virtual Circuit

   SVC   Switched Virtual Circuit

3. Sub-IP Layer

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 4]


   An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
   specifications.  Which link-layer specifications are included 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.  This section highlights some
   major layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.

3.1 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC2464

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement
   Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464].

3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP [RFC-

3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM
   Networks [RFC-2492].  Additionally, RFC 2492 states:

      A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
      of operation. An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
      SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.

4. IP Layer

4.1 Internet Protocol Version 6 - RFC2460

   The Internet Protocol Version 6 is specified in [RFC-2460]. This
   specification MUST be supported.

   Unrecognized options in Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options
   extensions 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 receving IPv6 packets; forwarding functionality MAY be

   RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 5]


      A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the
      following extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options, Routing (Type
      0), Fragment, Destination Options, Authentication and
      Encapsulating Security Payload. [RFC-2460]

   An IPv6 node MUST be able to process these headers.  It should be
   noted that there is some discussion about the use of Routing Headers
   and possible security threats [IPv6-RH] caused by them.

4.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461

   Neighbor Discovery SHOULD be supported.  RFC 2461 states:

      "Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating
      IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link
      types. However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of
      its services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., 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 is an area for further study."

   Some detailed analysis of Neighbor Discovery follows:

   Router Discovery is how hosts locate routers that reside on an
   attached link. Router Discovery MUST be supported for

   Prefix Discovery is how hosts discover the set of address prefixes
   that define which destinations are on-link for an attached link.
   Prefix discovery MUST be supported for implementations. Neighbor
   Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all paths
   between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for paths
   between routers.  However, when a node receives a unicast Neighbor
   Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node MUST
   respond to it (i.e. send a unicast Neighbor Advertisement).

   Duplicate Address Detection MUST be supported on all links
   supporting link-layer multicast (RFC2462 section 5.4 specifies DAD
   MUST take place on all unicast addresses).

   A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations.

   Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 6]


   host implementations. The ability to understand specific Router
   Advertisement options is dependent on supporting the specification
   where the RA is specified.

   Sending and Receiving Neighbor Solicitation (NS) and Neighbor
   Advertisement (NA) MUST be supported. NS and NA messages are
   required for Duplicate Address Detection (DAD).

   Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
   Redirect functionality MUST be supported.

4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size

4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981

   Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal
   implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large
   packets.  The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet
   fragmentation and reassembly.

4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675

   IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC-2675] MAY be supported.

4.4  ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463

   ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported.


4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513

   The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported as
   updated by [DEP-SL].

4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462

   IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC-2462].
   This specification MUST be supported for nodes that are hosts.
   Static address can be supported as well.

   Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses
   as described in RFC 2462 [RFC-2462].

   From 2462:

      The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
      only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 7]


      information advertised by routers, routers will need to be
      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.

   Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) MUST be supported.

4.5.3 Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC3041

   Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-
   3041] SHOULD be supported.  It is recommended that this behavior be
   configurable on a connection basis within each application when
   available.  It is noted that a number of applications do not work
   with addresses generated with this method, while other applications
   work quite well with them.

4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484

   The rules specified in the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC-
   3484] document MUST be implemented. It is expected that IPv6 nodes
   will need to deal with multiple addresses.

4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration

   Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCPv6 [RFC-
   3315] is the standard stateful address configuration protocol; see
   section 5.3 for DHCPv6 support.

   Nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration may be
   unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses
   when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed
   address configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised
   for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2).
   Additionally, such nodes will be unable to obtain other
   configuration information such as the addresses of DNS servers when
   it is connected to a link over which the node receives a router
   advertisement in which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration")
   is set.

4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710

   Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
   [MLDv2]. However, if the node has applications, which only need
   support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement
   MLDv1 [MLDv1] instead. If the node has applications, which need

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 8]


   support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569, SSMARCH], the node
   MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2].

   When MLD is used, the rules in "Source Address Selection for the
   Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol" [RFC-3590] MUST be

5. DNS and DHCP

5.1 DNS

   DNS is described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-3152], [RFC-3363]
   and [RFC-3596].  Not all nodes will need to resolve names, and those
   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 that applications rely on and
   generally needs to be supported.  All nodes that need to resolve
   names SHOULD implement stub-resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in
   RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with support for:

    - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596];
    - reverse addressing in using PTR records [RFC-3152];
    - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512

   Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extentions

   Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
   DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363].

5.2 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315

5.2.1 Managed Address Configuration

   The method by which IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment
   can obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon
   receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set is described
   in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.

   In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 Nodes that use
   DHCP for address assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6
   addresses and other configuration information, as described in
   section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462.  Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP
   for address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router

5.2.2 Other Configuration Information

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                    [Page 9]


   The method by which IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other
   configuration information can obtain other configuration information
   upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set is
   described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.

   Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration
   information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon
   receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as
   described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462.  Those IPv6 nodes that do
   not use DHCP for other configuration information can ignore the 'O'
   flag in Router Advertisements.

   An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] to
   obtain other configuration information.

5.3.3 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.

6. IPv4 Support and Transition

   IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.

6.1 Transition Mechanisms

6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893

   If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and tunneling, then RFC2893
   MUST be supported.

   RFC 2893 is currently being updated.

7. Mobile IP

   The Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] specification defines requirements for the
   following types of nodes:

       - mobile nodes
       - correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
       - home agents
       - all IPv6 routers

   Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section 8.5
   of [MIPv6], including support of generic packet tunneling [RFC-2473]
   and secure home agent communications [MIPv6-HASEC].

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 10]


   Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
   correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [MIPv6].

   Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for
   all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [MIPv6]. Routers MAY
   support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of
   [MIPv6], including support of [RFC-2473] and [MIPv6-HASEC].

8. Security

   This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.

8.1 Basic Architecture

   Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] MUST be
   supported. RFC-2401 is being updated by the IPsec Working Group.

8.2 Security Protocols

   ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported.
   RFC-2406 and RFC 2402 are being updated by the IPsec Working Group.

8.3 Transforms and Algorithms

   Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of transforms and algorithms
   for use with AH and ESP: NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96,
   and HMAC-MD5-96.  However, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
   Requirements For ESP And AH" [CRYPTREQ] contains the current set of
   mandatory to implement algorithms for ESP and AH.  It also specifies
   algorithms that should be implemented because they are likely to be
   promoted to mandatory at some future time.  IPv6 nodes SHOULD
   conform to the requirements in [CRYPTREQ] as well as the
   requirements specified below.

   Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional, support
   for the NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] and the NULL
   authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be provided to maintain
   consistency with the way these services are negotiated. However,
   while authentication and encryption can each be NULL, they MUST NOT
   both be NULL.  The NULL encryption algorithm is also useful for

   The DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2405] SHOULD NOT be supported
   within ESP.  Security issues related to the use of DES are discussed
   in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK].  DES-CBC is still listed as
   required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but updates to these RFCs will
   be published soon.  DES provides 56 bits of protection, which is no

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 11]


   longer considered sufficient.

   The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm [RFC-2404] within AH and ESP MUST
   be supported.  The use of HMAC-MD5-96 algorithm [RFC-2403] within AH
   and ESP MAY also be supported.

   The 3DES-CBC encryption algorithm [RFC-2451] does not suffer from
   the same security issues as DES-CBC, and the 3DES-CBC algorithm
   within ESP MUST be supported to ensure interoperability.

   The AES-128-CBC algorithm [RFC-3602] MUST also be supported within
   ESP.  AES-128 is expected to be a widely available, secure, and
   efficient algorithm.  While AES-128-CBC is not required by the
   current IPsec RFCs, it is expected to become required in the future.

8.4 Key Management Methods

   An implementation MUST support the manual configuration of the
   security key and SPI.  The SPI configuration is needed in order to
   delineate between multiple keys.

   Key management SHOULD be supported.  Examples of key management
   systems include IKEv1 [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409], IKEv2
   [IKEv2] and Kerberos; S/MIME and TLS include key management

   Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or on-demand
   creation of Security Associations (SAs) is required, automated 
   keying MUST be supported.

   Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being worked
   on by the MSEC WG.

9. 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.

9.1 General

9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711

   The IPv6 Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] is an optional IPv6 Hop-by-
   Hop Header that is used in conjunction with some protocols (e.g.,
   RSVP [RFC-2205], or MLD [RFC-2710]). The Router Alert option will
   need to be implemented whenever protocols that mandate its usage are
   implemented.  See Section 4.6.

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 12]


9.1.2 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC2461

   Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitation
   MUST be supported.

10. Network Management

   Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes.  However, for
   IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the
   only possibility to control these nodes.

10.1 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)

   The following two MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
   SNMP agent.

10.1.1  IP Forwarding Table MIB

   IP Forwarding Table MIB [RFC-2096BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes
   that support an SNMP agent.

10.1.2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)

   IP MIB [RFC-2011BIS] SHOULD be supported by nodes that support an
   SNMP agent.

11. Security Considerations

   This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but
   implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
   security features to ensure security on the Internet.  "IP Security
   Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read.

   The security considerations in RFC2460 describe the following:

      The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
      Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].

12. References

12.1 Normative

   [CRYPTREQ]     D. Eastlake 3rd, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementa-
                  tion Requirements For ESP And AH", draft-ietf-ipsec-
                  esp-ah-algorithms-01.txt, January 2004.

   [IKEv2ALGO]    J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the
                  Internet Key Exchange Version 2", draft-ietf-ipsec-

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 13]


                  ikev2-algorithms-05.txt, Work in Progress.

   [MIPv6]        J. Arkko, D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Sup-
                  port in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Work
                  in progress.

   [MIPv6-HASEC]  J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec
                  to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes
                  and Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-
                  ipsec-06.txt, Work in Progress.

   [MLDv2]        Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Ver-
                  sion 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-08.txt,
                  Work in Progress.

   [RFC-1035]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
                  specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC-1981]     McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU
                  Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [RFC-2096BIS]  Haberman, B. and Wasserman, M., "IP Forwarding Table
                  MIB", draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-07.txt, Work in

   [RFC-2011BIS]  Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for
                  the Internet Protocol (IP)", draft-ietf-ipv6-
                  rfc2011-update-09.txt, Work in progress.

   [RFC-2104]     Krawczyk, K., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R., "HMAC:
                  Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
                  February 1997.

   [RFC-2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC-2401]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for
                  the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

   [RFC-2402]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R.,  "IP Authentication
                  Header", RFC 2402, November 1998.

   [RFC-2403]     Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5
                  within ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.

   [RFC-2404]     Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1
                  within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 14]


   [RFC-2405]     Madson, C. and Doraswamy, N., "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
                  Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.

   [RFC-2406]     Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security
                  Protocol (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

   [RFC-2407]     Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
                  Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.

   [RFC-2408]     Maughan, D., Schertler, M., Schneider, M., and
                  Turner, J., "Internet Security Association and Key
                  Management Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November

   [RFC-2409]     Harkins, D., and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key
                  Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.

   [RFC-2410]     Glenn, R. and Kent, S., "The NULL Encryption Algo-
                  rithm and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November

   [RFC-2451]     Pereira, R. and Adams, R., "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
                  Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.

   [RFC-2460]     Deering, S. and Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Ver-
                  sion 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December

   [RFC-2461]     Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor
                  Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
                  December 1998.

   [RFC-2462]     Thomson, S. and Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Address
                  Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462.

   [RFC-2463]     Conta, A. and Deering, S., "ICMP for the Internet
                  Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, December 1998.

   [RFC-2472]     Haskin, D. and Allen, E., "IP version 6 over PPP",
                  RFC 2472, December 1998.

   [RFC-2473]     Conta, A. and Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling
                  in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.  Xxx

   [RFC-2671]     Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
                  RFC 2671, August 1999.

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 15]


   [RFC-2710]     Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast
                  Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October

   [RFC-2711]     Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert
                  Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.

   [RFC-3041]     Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for
                  Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC
                  3041, January 2001.

   [RFC-3152]     Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", RFC 3152, August

   [RFC-3315]     Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Proto-
                  col for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC-3363]     Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol
                  version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System
                  (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.

   [RFC-3484]     Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC
                  3484, February 2003.

   [RFC-3513]     Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
                  Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

   [RFC-3590]     Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Mul-
                  ticast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
                  September 2003.

   [RFC-3596]     Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP
                  version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003.

   [RFC-3602]     S. Frankel, "The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use
                  with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003.

   [DEP-SL]       C. Huitema, B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
                  Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-
                  03.txt, Work in Progress.

12.2 Non-Normative

[ANYCAST]      Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast",
               draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt, Work in

[DESDIFF]      Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 16]


               DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4,
               Jan 1991.

[DESCRACK]     Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA

[DESINT]       Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without
               Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF,
               Danvers, MA, April 1995.

[DHCPv6-SL]    R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Ser-
               vice", RFC 3736, April 2004.

[DNSSEC-INTRO] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and
               Rose, S., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements"
               draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-10.txt, Work in Progress.

[DNSSEC-REC]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and
               Rose, S., "Resource Records for the DNS Security Exten-
               sions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-08.txt, Work in

[DNSSEC-PROT]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and
               Rose, S., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
               Extensions", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-06.txt,
               Work in Progress.

[IKE2]         Kaufman, C. (ed), "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Proto-
               col", draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-13.txt, Work in Progress.

[IPv6-RH]      P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
               Address Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-
               03.txt, Work in Progress.

[MC-THREAT]    Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu-
               rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sym-
               posium on Network and Distributed System Security",
               February 1995, pp.2-16.

[RFC-793]      Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
               August 1980.

[RFC-1034]     Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facili-
               ties", RFC 1034, November 1987.

[RFC-2205]     Braden, B. (ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and
               S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)", RFC
               2205, September 1997.

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 17]


[RFC-2464]     Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ether-
               net Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998.

[RFC-2492]     G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over
               ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.

[RFC-2675]     Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo-
               grams", RFC 2675, August 1999.

[RFC-2851]     M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder,
               "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses",
               RFC 2851, June 2000.

[RFC-2893]     Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms
               for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.

[RFC-3569]     S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific
               Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.

[SSM-ARCH]     H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
               IP", draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt, Work in Progress.

13. Authors and Acknowledgements

   This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:

      Jari Arkko

      Marc Blanchet

      Samita Chakrabarti

      Alain Durand

      Gerard Gastaud

      Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino

      Atsushi Inoue

      Masahiro Ishiyama

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 18]



      John Loughney

      Rajiv Raghunarayan

      Shoichi Sakane

      Dave Thaler

      Juha Wiljakka

   The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car-
   penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Nar-
   ten, Juha Ollila and Pekka Savola for their comments.

14. Editor's Contact Information

   Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to the
   IPv6 Working Group mailing list ( or to:

      John Loughney
      Nokia Research Center
      Itamerenkatu 11-13
      00180 Helsinki

      Phone: +358 50 483 6242


   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC docu-
   ments can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 19]


   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specifi-
   cation can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Loughney (editor)           August 23, 2004                   [Page 20]