IPv6 Node Requirements
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
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)|
|Additional resources||Mailing list discussion|
|IESG||IESG state||RFC 4294 (Informational)|
|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 draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-11.txt 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- Drafts. 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 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. Loughney (editor) August 23, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft 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 Notices Loughney (editor) August 23, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft 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", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC- 2119]. 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] Internet-Draft - a device that implements IPv6 Description of an IPv6 router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to itself. 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] Internet-Draft 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- 2472]. 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 supported RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these headers. Loughney (editor) August 23, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft 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 implementations. 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] Internet-Draft 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. Addressing 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] Internet-Draft 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] Internet-Draft 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 followed. 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 ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152]; - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 octets. Those nodes are RECOMMENDED to support DNS security extentions [DNSSEC-INTRO], [DNSSEC-REC] and [DNSSEC-PROT]. 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 Advertisements. 5.2.2 Other Configuration Information Loughney (editor) August 23, 2004 [Page 9] Internet-Draft 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] Internet-Draft 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 debugging. 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] Internet-Draft 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 functions. 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] Internet-Draft 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] Internet-Draft 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 Progress. [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] Internet-Draft [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 1998. [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 1998. [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 1998. [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 add [RFC-2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671, August 1999. Loughney (editor) August 23, 2004 [Page 15] Internet-Draft [RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999. [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 2001. [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 Progress. [DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of Loughney (editor) August 23, 2004 [Page 16] Internet-Draft DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4, Jan 1991. [DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA 2000. [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 Progress. [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] Internet-Draft [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 [email@example.com] Marc Blanchet [firstname.lastname@example.org] Samita Chakrabarti [email@example.com] Alain Durand [firstname.lastname@example.org] Gerard Gastaud [email@example.com] Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [firstname.lastname@example.org] Atsushi Inoue [email@example.com] Masahiro Ishiyama Loughney (editor) August 23, 2004 [Page 18] Internet-Draft [firstname.lastname@example.org] John Loughney [email@example.com] Rajiv Raghunarayan [firstname.lastname@example.org] Shoichi Sakane [email@example.com] Dave Thaler [firstname.lastname@example.org] Juha Wiljakka [juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com] 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 (email@example.com) or to: John Loughney Nokia Research Center Itamerenkatu 11-13 00180 Helsinki Finland Phone: +358 50 483 6242 Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com Notices 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] Internet-Draft 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 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 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- firstname.lastname@example.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Loughney (editor) August 23, 2004 [Page 20]