IPv6 Nonce Destination Option for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol for IPv6 (ILNPv6)
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 6744.
|Authors||Ran Atkinson , SN Bhatti|
|Last updated||2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2012-07-10)|
|RFC stream||Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)|
|IESG||IESG state||RFC 6744 (Experimental)|
|Responsible AD||Brian Haberman|
|Send notices email@example.com|
Internet Draft RJ Atkinson draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-06.txt Consultant Expires: 10 JAN 2013 SN Bhatti Category: Experimental U. St Andrews 10 July 2012 IPv6 Nonce Destination Option for ILNPv6 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-06.txt Status of this Memo Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright (c) 2012 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 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. This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. 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 Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 1] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 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/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This document is not on the IETF standards-track and does not specify any level of standard. This document merely provides information for the Internet community. This document is part of the ILNP document set, which has had extensive review within the IRTF Routing Research Group. ILNP is one of the recommendations made by the RG Chairs. Separately, various refereed research papers on ILNP have also been published during this decade. So the ideas contained herein have had much broader review than the IRTF Routing RG. The views in this document were considered controversial by the Routing RG, but the RG reached a consensus that the document still should be published. The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered controversial. Abstract The Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) is an experimental, evolutionary enhancement to IP. ILNP has multiple instantiations. This document describes an experimental Nonce Destination Option used only with ILNP for IPv6 (ILNPv6). This document is a product of the IRTF Routing RG. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...............................................2 2. Syntax......................................................3 3. Transport Protocol Effects..................................5 4. Location Changes............................................5 5. Implementation Considerations...............................6 6. Backwards Compatibility.....................................6 7. Security Considerations ....................................8 8. IANA Considerations ........................................9 Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 2] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 9. References .................................................9 1. INTRODUCTION At present, the Internet research and development community are exploring various approaches to evolving the Internet Architecture to solve a variety of issues including, but not limited to, scalability of inter-domain routing [RFC4984]. A wide range of other issues (e.g. site multi-homing, node multi-homing, site/subnet mobility, node mobility) are also active concerns at present. Several different classes of evolution are being considered by the Internet research & development community. One class is often called "Map and Encapsulate", where traffic would be mapped and then tunnelled through the inter-domain core of the Internet. Another class being considered is sometimes known as "Identifier/Locator Split". This document relates to a proposal that is in the latter class of evolutionary approaches. This document describes a new option for the IPv6 Destination Options header that is used with the Identifier Locator Network Protocol for IPv6 (ILNPv6). ILNPv6 is an experimental protocol that is backwards compatible with, and incrementally upgradable from, IPv6. This option is ONLY used in ILNPv6 sessions and is never used with classic IPv6 sessions. The Nonce option for the IPv6 Destination Options Header that is described in this document provides two functions. First, it provides protection against off-path attacks for packets when ILNPv6 is in use. Second, it provides a signal during initial network-layer session creation that ILNPv6 is proposed for use with this network-layer session, rather than classic IPv6. This last function is particularly important for ensuring that ILNP is both incrementally deployable and backwards compatible with IPv6. Consequently, this option MUST NOT be used except by an ILNPv6-capable node. Further, each Nonce value is unidirectional. Since packets often travel asymmetric paths between two correspondents, having separate Nonces for each direction limits the number of on-path nodes that can easily learn an ILNP session's nonce. So a typical TCP session will have 2 different nonce values in use: one nonce is used from Local Node to the Correspondent Node and a different nonce is used from the Correspondent Node to the Local Node. 1.1 ILNP Document Roadmap Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 3] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 The Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP), is described in the ILNP Architecture [ILNP-ARCH] document, which should be read first. ILNP can have multiple instantiations. [ILNP-ENG] discusses engineering and implementation aspects common to all ILNP instantiations. [ILNP-DNS] defines new Domain Name System (DNS) resource records for ILNP. [ILNP-ICMPv6] defines a new ICMPv6 Locator Update message for use with ILNPv6. Other documents describe ILNP for IPv4 (ILNPv4). 1.2 Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. [RFC2119] 2. Syntax The Nonce Option is carried within an IPv6 Destination Option Header. Section 4 of [RFC2460] provides much more information on the various options and optional headers used with IPv6. More than one option might be inside the IPv6 Destination Option Header, however at most 1 Nonce Option exists in a given IPv6 packet. A system that receives a packet containing more than one Nonce option SHOULD discard the packet as "Authentication Failed" (instead of passing the packet up to the appropriate transport-layer protocol or to ICMP) and SHOULD log the event, including the Source Locator, Source Identifier, Destination Locator, Destination Identifier, upper-layer protocol (e.g. OSPF, TCP, UDP) if any, and transport-layer port numbers (if any), as a security fault in accordance with local logging policies. As of this writing, IPv6 Destination Option Headers, and the options carried by such headers, are extremely uncommon in the deployed Internet. So, it is expected that this Nonce Option commonly would be the only IPv6 Destination Option present in a given IPv6 packet. If a CALIPSO label option [RFC5570] is also present in the same IPv6 Destination Option Header, the CALIPSO option SHOULD precede the Nonce option. The Nonce option SHOULD precede other possible options in the same IPv6 Destination Option Header. In the diagram below, we show not only the Nonce Option, but also the IPv6 Destination Option Header that carries the Nonce Option. Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 4] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Option Type | Option Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / Nonce Value / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Next Header: 8-bit selector. Identifies the type of header immediately following the Destination Options header. Uses the same values as the IPv4 Protocol field [RFC2460]. Hdr Ext Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the Destination Options header in 8-octet units, not including the first 8 octets. Option Type: This contains the value XXX. This is the first octet of the Nonce Option itself. Option Length: This indicates the length in 8-bit octets of the Nonce Value field of the Nonce Option. This value must be selected so that the enveloping IPv6 Destination Option complies with the IPv6 header alignment rules. Common values are 4 (when the Nonce Value is 32-bits), and 12 (when the Nonce value is 96-bits). Nonce Value: An unpredictable cryptographically random value used to prevent off-path attacks on an ILNP session [RFC4086]. This field has variable length, with the length indicated by the Option Length field preceding it. Note that the overall IPv6 IPv6 Destination Option MUST comply with IPv6 header alignment rules. Implementations MUST support sending and receiving 32-bit and 96-bit Nonce values. 3. Transport Protocol Effects When the initial packet(s) of an IPv6 session contain this Nonce Destination Option, then ILNPv6 is in use for that network-layer session. (NOTE: Backwards compatibility and incremental deployment are discussed in more detail in Section 6 below.) When a network-layer session is using ILNPv6, then the transport-layer pseudo-header calculations MUST set to zero the Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 5] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 high-order 64-bits ("Locator" or "Routing Prefix") of each IPv6 address. This has the effect that the transport-layer is no longer aware of the topological network location of either node in that transport-layer session. The preceding rule applies not only to unicast ILNPv6 sessions, but also to multicast or anycast ILNPv6 sessions. 4. Location Changes When a node has a change in its Locator set that causes all previously valid Locators to become invalid, the node MUST send an ICMP Locator Update message (containing the Nonce Option with the appropriate nonce value) to each of its correspondents ILNP-ARCH] [ILNP-ICMPv6]. In the deployed Internet, packets sometimes arrive at a destination out of order. A receiving node MUST drop a packet arriving from a correspondent if the Source Locator of the received packet is not in the receiving node's Identifier Locator Communication Cache's (ILCC's) Set of Correspondent Locator(s) UNLESS that packet contains a Nonce Option with the appropriate nonce value for that Source Identifier and Destination Identifier pair. This is done to reduce the risk of ILNP session hijacking or ILNP session interference attacks. Hence, the node that has had all previously valid Locators become invalid MUST include the Nonce Option with the appropriate nonce value in all packets (data or otherwise) to all correspondents for at least 3 round-trip times for each correspondent. (NB: An implementation need not actually calculate RTT values; it could just use a fixed timer with a time long enough to cover the longest RTT path, such as 1 minute.) This 'gratuitous authentication' ensures that the correspondent can authenticate any received packet, even if the ICMP Locator Update control message arrives and is processed AFTER some other packet using the new Source Locator(s). If an ILNP session is using IP Security, then, of course, IP Security SHOULD continue to be used even if one or more participating nodes change location. Because IP Security for ILNP [ILNP-ENG] binds only to the Identifiers, and not to the Locators in the packet, changes in Locator value have no impact on IP Security for ILNP sessions. As mobility and multi-homing are functionally equivalent for ILNP, this section applies equally to either situation, and also to any other situation in which a node's set of Locators might change over time. Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 6] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 5. Implementation Considerations Implementers may use any internal implementation they wish, PROVIDED that the externally visible behaviour is the same as this implementation approach. 5.1 ILNP Communication Cache As described in [ILNP-ENG], ILNP nodes maintain an Identifier-Locator Communication Cache (ILCC) that contains several variables for each correspondent. The ILNP Nonce value is an important part of that cache. 5.2 Mode Indicator To support ILNP, and to retain needed incremental deployability and backwards compatibility, the network layer needs a (logical) mode bit in the Transport Control Block (or equivalent for one's implementation) to track which IP sessions are using traditional IPv6 and which IP sessions are using ILNPv6. If a given transport-layer session is using ILNP, then an entry corresponding to the network-layer components of that transport-layer session also will exist in the ILNP Communication Cache. Multiple transport-layer sessions between a given pair of nodes normally share a single entry in the ILNP Communication Cache, provided their network-layer details (e.g. Identifiers, Nonces) are identical. Because two different ILNP nodes at two different locations might share the same Identifier value, it is important for an ILNP implementation to use the ILNP Nonce values to distinguish between different ILNP nodes that happen to be using the (some of) the same Identifier value(s). 5.3 IP Security Whether or not ILNP is in use, the IPsec subsystem MUST maintain an IPsec Security Association Database (SAD) and also MUST maintain information about which IPsec Selectors apply to traffic received by or sent from the local node [RFC4301]. By combining the information in the IPsec SAD, of what IPsec Selectors apply, and the information in the ILCC, an implementation has sufficient knowledge to apply IPsec properly to both received and transmitted packets. 6. Backwards Compatibility This option MUST NOT be present in an IPv6 packet unless the packet is part of an ILNPv6 session. As is explained below in Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 7] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 more detail, the presence or absence of this option from the initial packets of a new IPv6 session is an important indication of whether the session is using classic IPv6 or ILNPv6. ILNPv6 nodes MUST include this option in the first few packets of each ILNPv6 session, MUST include this option in all ICMP messages generated by endpoints participating in an ILNPv6 session, and MAY include this option in any and all packets of an ILNPv6 session. It is recommended that this option be included in all packets of the ILNPv6 session if the packet loss for that session is known to be much higher than normal. If a node supports ILNP and the node wishes to be able to receive incoming new ILNP sessions, then that node's fully-qualified domain name SHOULD have one or more NID records and also one or more Locator (e.g. L64 or LP) records associated with it in the DNS [ILNP-DNS]. When a host ("initiator") initiates a new IP session with a correspondent ("responder"), it normally will perform a DNS lookup to determine the address(es) of the responder. A host that has been enhanced to support the Identifier/Locator Split operating mode SHOULD look for Node Identifier ("NID") and Locator ("L64") records in any received DNS replies. DNS servers that support Identifier and Locator (i.e., L64 or LP) records might include them (when they exist) as additional data in all DNS replies to DNS queries for DNS A or AAAA records associated with a specified DNS Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN). If the initiator supports ILNP, and from DNS data learns that the responder also supports ILNP, then the initiator SHOULD attempt to use ILNP for new sessions with that responder. In such cases, the initiator MUST generate an unpredictable, cryptographically random, ILNP Nonce value, MUST store that ILNP Nonce value in the local ILCC, and MUST include the ILNP Nonce Destination Option in its initial packet(s) to the responder. The IETF has provided advice on generating cryptographically random numbers, such as this nonce value [RFC4086]. If the responder supports ILNP and receives initial packet(s) containing the ILNP Nonce Destination Option, the responder will thereby learn that the initiator supports ILNP and the responder also will use ILNP for this new IP session. If the responder supports ILNP and receives initial IP packet(s) NOT containing the Nonce Destination Option, the responder will thereby learn that the initiator does NOT support ILNP and the responder will use classic IPv6 for this new IP session. Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 8] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 If the responder does not support ILNP and receives initial packet(s) containing the ILNP Nonce Destination Option, the responder MUST drop the packet and MUST send an ICMP "Parameter Problem" error message back to the initiator [RFC4443]. Indeed, it is not expected that this behaviour will need to be coded into non-ILNP nodes, as this is the normal behaviour for nodes receiving unknown option headers. If the initiator EITHER does not receive a response from the responder in a timely manner (e.g. within the applicable TCP timeout for a TCP session), and also does not receive an ICMP Unreachable error message for that packet, OR if the initiator receives an ICMP Parameter Problem error message for that packet, then the initiator infers that the responder is not able to support ILNP. In this case, the initiator should try again to create the new IP session, but this time use classic IPv6 and hence MUST NOT include the ILNP Nonce Destination Option. 7. Security Considerations The ILNPv6 Nonce Destination Option is used ONLY for ILNPv6 sessions, because this option is part of the backwards- compatibility and incremental-deployment approach for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP). This option MUST NOT be used with classic IPv6 sessions. The ILNPv6 Nonce Destination Option only seeks to provide protection against off-path attacks on an IP session. Ordinary IPv6 is vulnerable to on-path attacks unless IP Security is in use [CA-1995-01] [RFC4301]. This option exists to provide non- cryptographic protection for ILNP sessions, protection equivalent to the security of IP sessions that do NOT use IPsec. When ILNPv6 is in use, the ILNP Nonce Destination Option MUST be included in any ICMP control messages (e.g. ICMP Unreachable, ICMP Locator Update) sent by participants in that ILNPv6 session, even if IP Security also is in use for that ILNPv6 session. Note that certain ICMP messages, for example a "Path Too Big" message, might be generated by transit devices that are not aware of the ILNP Nonce in use for that ILNPv6 session and hence are not able to include the ILNP Nonce. Again, this also is true of classic IPv6 in the same operational situations, so this does not create a new security issue. For ILNPv6 sessions, any ICMP control messages received from a participant in that ILNPv6 session that lack a Nonce Destination Option MUST be discarded as forgeries. This security event SHOULD be logged in accordance with local security logging Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 9] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 policies, including details of the received packet (i.e. Source Locator, Source Identifier, Destination Locator, Destination Identifier, upper-layer protocol (e.g. TCP, UDP, OSPF) if any, transport-layer port numbers if any, and the date and time the packet was received). For ILNPv6 sessions, ICMP control messages received from a participant in that ILNPv6 session that have a Nonce Destination Option, but do NOT have the correct nonce value inside the Nonce Destination Option, MUST be discarded as forgeries. This security event SHOULD be logged as described above. Of course, longer nonce values provide greater resistance to random guessing of the nonce value. However, ILNPv6 sessions operating in higher risk environments SHOULD also use the cryptographic authentication provided by IP Security for ILNP [ILNP-ENG] [RFC4301]. Use of IP Security for ILNP for an ILNPv6 session does not eliminate the need for the ILNPv6 Nonce Option to be included as described here or as described in [ILNP- ICMPv6]. As a performance optimisation, it is suggested that when both the Nonce Option and IP Security are present in a packet and the Nonce Option has not been encrypted, that the Nonce Option value be checked for validity before beginning IP Security processing. This minimises the ability of an off-path attacker to force the recipient to perform expensive cryptographic computations on received control packets. For environments with data at differing Sensitivity Levels operating over common infrastructure (e.g. when the IPv6 CALIPSO is deployed), it is recommended that the ILNP Nonce Option be encrypted by using ESP Transport-Mode or ESP Tunnel-Mode in order to reduce the covert channel bandwidth potential created by the Nonce Option, and to prevent a node at one sensitivity level from attacking a ILNP session at a different sensitivity level [RFC5570]. Further, Multi-Level Secure (MLS) systems SHOULD use different nonce values for ILNP sessions having different Sensitivity Levels [RFC5570]. Also, an MLS implementation of ILNP will also store the Sensitivity Label information associated with each ILNP session in the implementation's ILCC. When the Nonce option and the CALIPSO option are present in the same IPv6 Destination Options Header, the CALIPSO option SHOULD appear before the Nonce option. In all cases, the ILNP Nonce Value MUST be unpredictable and cryptographically random. [RFC4086] provides concrete advice on how to generate a suitable nonce value. Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 10] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 As this is an option within the IPv6 Destination Option Header, rather than an option within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option Header, the presence of this option in an IPv6 packet ought not disturb routers along the path an IP packet containing this option happens to travel. Further, many deployed modern IP routers (both IPv4 and IPv6) have been explicitly configured to ignore all IP options, even including the "Router Alert" option, when forwarding packets not addressed to the router itself. Reports indicate this has been done to preclude use of IP options as a (Distributed) Denial-of-Service (D)DOS attack vector on backbone routers. As the Nonce is used in the checksum of all AH protected packets, as an implementation hint, it would seem sensible to include the Nonce value from the ILCC for that ILNP session. 8. IANA Considerations Subject to IESG Approval, and consistent with the procedures of [RFC2780], IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Destination Option Type value (replacing XXX, in Section 2 above). The Nonce Option MUST NOT change in transit and MUST be included in IP Authentication Header calculations. Further, if an end system receives an IPv6 packet containing this option, but does not recognise this option, the end system MUST discard the packet and, regardless of whether or not the received packet's Destination Address was a multicast address, send an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem, Code 2 ("Unrecognised IPv6 Option Encountered"), message to the received packet's Source IPv6 Address, pointing to the unrecognised Option Type. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2460] S. Deering & R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol Version 6 Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC4301] S. Kent & K. Seo, "Security Architecture for Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 11] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. [RFC4443] A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for IPv6 Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. [ILNP-ARCH] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ILNP Architectural Description", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch, 10 July 2012. [ILNP-ENG] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ILNP Engineering and Implementation Considerations", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng, 10 July 2012. [ILNP-ICMPv6] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ICMPv6 Locator Update message" draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6, 10 July 2012. 9.2. Informative References [CA-1995-01] US CERT, "CERT Advisory 1995-01", Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1995. [RFC4086] D. Eastlake 3rd, J. Schiller, & S. Crocker, "Randomness Requirements for Security", RFC 4086, June 2005. [RFC5570] M. StJohns, R. Atkinson, and G. Thomas, "Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO)", RFC 5570, July 2009. [ILNP-ADV] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "Optional Advanced Deployment Scenarios for ILNP", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv, 10 July 2012. [ILNP-ARP] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ARP Extension for ILNPv4", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp, 10 July 2012. [ILNP-DNS] R.J. Atkinson, S.N. Bhatti, & S Rose, "DNS Resource Records for ILNP", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns, 10 July 2012. [ILNP-ICMPv4] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, "ICMPv4 Locator Update message" draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4, 10 July 2012. [ILNP-v4OPTS] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 12] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 "IPv4 Options for ILNP", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts, 10 July 2012. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Steve Blake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Mohamed Boucadair, Noel Chiappa, Wes George, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley, Volker Hilt, Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter, Bruce Simpson, Robin Whittle and John Wroclawski (in alphabetical order) provided review and feedback on earlier versions of this document. Steve Blake provided an especially thorough review of an early version of the entire ILNP document set, which was extremely helpful. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers of the various ILNP papers for their feedback. Roy Arends provided expert guidance on technical and procedural aspects of DNS issues. RFC EDITOR NOTE This section is to be removed prior to publication. Please note that this document is written in British English, so British English spelling is used throughout. This is consistent with existing practice in several other RFCs, for example RFC-5887. This document tries to be very careful with history, in the interest of correctly crediting ideas to their earliest identifiable author(s). So in several places the first published RFC about a topic is cited rather than the most recent published RFC about that topic. Authors' Addresses: RJ Atkinson Consultant San Jose, CA 95125 USA firstname.lastname@example.org SN Bhatti School of Computer Science University of St Andrews North Haugh, St Andrews Fife, Scotland, UK KY16 9SX Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 13] Internet Draft ILNP Nonce v6 10 JUL 2012 Expires: 10 JAN 2013 Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 Months [Page 14]