SLAAC Prefixes with Variable Interface ID (IID)
draft-mishra-6man-variable-iids-02
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gyan Mishra , Dmytro Shytyi , Alexandre Petrescu , Naveen Kottapalli , Dusan Mudric | ||
| Last updated | 2024-11-07 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-mishra-6man-variable-iids-02
6MAN Working Group G. Mishra
Internet-Draft Verizon Inc.
Updates: RFC2464, RFC4291, RFC4861, RFC4862, D. Shytyi
RFC7136, RFC8273 (if approved) 6WIND
Intended status: Standards Track A. Petrescu
Expires: 11 May 2025 CEA, LIST
N. Kottapalli
D. Mudric
Ciena
7 November 2024
SLAAC Prefixes with Variable Interface ID (IID)
draft-mishra-6man-variable-iids-02
Abstract
This draft proposes the use of a longer prefixes in PIO for SLAAC
allowing a maximum prefix length of /80 with an IID of 48 bits. This
would eliminate the race to the bottom concerns.
This implementation uses the RA/PIO bits to carry the variable IID to
ensure backwards compatibility.
In the past, various IPv6 addressing models have been proposed based
on a subnet hierarchy embedding a 64-bit prefix. The last remnant of
IPv6 classful addressing is a inflexible interface identifier
boundary at /64. This document proposes flexibility to the fixed
position of that boundary for interface addressing.
Requirements 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 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 May 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Modified Procedures for Network side signaling . . . . . . . 3
4. Modified procedure for host side signaling . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Host side use of sysctl tool local configuration . . . . . . 5
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The Variable IID problem statement document
[I-D.mishra-v6ops-variable-iids-problem-statement] goes into detail
surrounding the problem we are trying to solve with this document.
There are many reasons that have come up as to why the fixed boundary
must be changed and the two leading issues are firstly parity between
addressing mechanisms SLAAC, DHCPv6 and Static, Thus the only
solution is variable IID. It is recommended to read the problem
statement document before this solutions space document.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
The lowest common denominator method of configuration for IPv6 nodes
is SLAAC [RFC4862], which is carefully designed to allow any prefix
length and any interface identifier (IID) length, provided that they
do not total more than 128 bits. Until now, specifications of "IPv6
over foo" mappings, starting with [RFC2464], have specified an IID
length of 64 bits, consistent with the value specified by [RFC4291].
This document allows a router to announce an IID length other than 64
on a given link, and updates RFC [RFC4291], [RFC2464] (and numerous
other "IPv6 over foo" documents TBD), and [RFC4862] accordingly. It
extends [RFC4861] by defining a new "IID length" mechanism in RA
messages.
This document proposes longer prefixes in PIO for SLAAC allowing a
maximum prefix lenght of /80 and an IID for 48 bits. The
recommendation would eliminate the race to the bottom. The
implementaion for backwards compatibility leverages the use of 6 LSB
bits of the 32 bit Reserved2 field in the PIO options header which
today per RFC 4861 is initialized to 0 and is ignored by the
receiver. Since the PIO Reserved2 field is initialized to 0 by the
sender and is ignored by the receiver, it allows for backwards
compatibility for Unmodified hosts.
2. Terminology
Terminolgoy used in defining the IPv6-Only Edge specification.
Modified Host: Supports this specification
Unmodified Host: Does not support this specification
3. Modified Procedures for Network side signaling
The use case here is for Mobile Broadband (MBB) and Fixed Broadband
(FBB) conected to the internet being signaled from the network to
host the variable IID Length Reserved2 field.
The predefined IID length specified by [RFC4291], [RFC2464], etc. is
used to configure the link-local IPv6 address of a node exactly as
described in [RFC4862].
On a link where variable IID length is not supported, the predefined
IID length will continue to be used to configure all other addresses
using SLAAC.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
On a link where variable IID length is supported, each modified
router will include an "IID length" indication in every RA/PIO
message with the A bit set. This will override the value defined in
[RFC2464] (etc.) and in [RFC4291], for the prefix concerned.
In this variable IID specification it is recommended to put the IID
length in the 6 LSB bits of the 32 Reserved2 field of the PIO for
signaling to Modified hosts supporting variable IID that the prefix
being advertised is not 64 bits.
00000000 would mean 64, i.e. no change and backwards compatible. Any
other value would define an IID length in bits. Values less than 48
(00110000) are NOT RECOMMENDED. Values greater than 64 are
impossible.
Exmaple of valid IID Length value: "00111011" /69 with 59 bit IID
(Note: Reserved1 is not available - see [RFC8425].)
When a modified node receives an "IID length" less than 64, it will
use that value instead of the default for all unicast address
autoconfiguration under that prefix, except link-local.
4. Modified procedure for host side signaling
The main use case here is for Data Center for Service Provider or
Enterprise networks host compute CNF, VNF, PNF. Host side siganls to
the network the Varriable IID Reserved2 field and the network
accomodates the variable IID. This could be a Devops model case
where the server team is network aware server compute side use case
to initiate the signaling.
The predefined IID length specified by [RFC4291], [RFC2464], etc. is
used to configure the link-local IPv6 address of a node exactly as
described in [RFC4862].
On a link where variable IID length is not supported, the predefined
IID length will continue to be used to configure all other addresses
using SLAAC.
On a link where variable IID length is supported, each modified
router will include an "IID length" indication in every RA/PIO
message with the A bit set. This will override the value defined in
[RFC2464] (etc.) and in [RFC4291], for the prefix concerned.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
In this variable IID specification it is recommended to put the IID
length in the 6 LSB bits of the 32 Reserved2 field of the PIO for
signaling to Modified hosts supporting variable IID that the prefix
being advertised is not 64 bits.
00000000 would mean 64, i.e. no change and backwards compatible. Any
other value would define an IID length in bits. Values less than 48
(00110000) are NOT RECOMMENDED. Values greater than 64 are
impossible.
Exmaple of valid IID Length value: "00111011" /69 with 59 bit IID
(Note: Reserved1 is not available - see [RFC8425].)
When a modified node receives an "IID length" less than 64, it will
use that value instead of the default for all unicast address
autoconfiguration under that prefix, except link-local.
5. Host side use of sysctl tool local configuration
The main use case here is for Data Center for Service Provider or
Enterprise networks host compute CNF, VNF, PNF. Host side siganls to
the network the Varriable IID Reserved2 field and the network
accomodates the variable IID. This could be a Devops model case
where the server team is network aware server compute side use case
to initiate the signaling.
With this solution we are able to use the Linux kernel sysctl bit for
backwards compatibility. This solution would allow for modified and
unmodified hosts to exist on the same subnet and no issues with
breaking anything that is already working by default.
Users Equipment to have a possibility to manually enable (button,
cli, etc.) to signal in RS via option(bit) that it wishes/capable to
activate the Variable IIDs service, otherwise it is off by default
(like hotspot button in Smartphones).
It might be used as a _manual-client-side-only-activation_ of the
feature that is transparent for operator configuration side (no need
of manual service activation by provider via cli/button).
In other words client-side activates with a button the action to send
the RS with a variable-IIDs specific bit, Where server side, when
receives RS with a Variable-IID bit -> replies with unicast RA with
Variable-IID.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
The sysctl is a tool that helps to implement the client-manual-
activation behavior in Linux environment. As well as it might be for
UNIX-like systems, or similar. I Windows, MAC, iOS and Android and
any other OS would have to come up with a similar to sysctl tool to
activate the behavior. Android uses a modified linux kernel. Mac
uses XNU kerenl and does have syctl tool. Windows is the only gap
that wo
6. Operational Considerations
- Unmodified hosts and unmodified routers: no change, all use 64-bit
IIDs.
- Modified hosts and unmodified routers: no change, all use 64-bit
IIDs.
- Modified routers and unmodified hosts: no change, all use 64-bit
IIDs.
- Modified hosts and modified routers: configure to use longer
prefixes and shorter IIDs if desired.
* Modified routers and mixture of modified and unmodified hosts on a
link:
Modified:
- The modified hosts will use a shorter IID and longer prefix
if that is announced.
* The unmodified hosts, according to RFC 4861, MUST ignore the
Reserved1 field. So, according to section 5.5.3 clause d) of RFC
4862, they will ignore any PIO advertising a shorter IID.
Unmodified:
- Therefore, operators have two choices for Unmodified hosts:
- 1. Decide that unmodified hosts will not be supported (i.e.
will not be able to configure an address using SLAAC).
- 2. Announce (at least) two prefixes on the link - a /64 and
a longer one, with a shorter IID. For that to make sense,
we need an extra rule for modified hosts: if a host receives
several PIOs from the same router, it prefers all those with
the shortest IID and ignores the others.
Mixure of Modifiled and Unmodified hosts router on a link is not
recommmended.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
7. Security Considerations
The administrator should be aware to maintain 64 bit interface
identifier for privacy when connected directly to the internet so
that entropy for optimal heuristics are maintained for security.
Variable length interface identifier shorter than 64 bits should be
used within networks where there there are out-of-band guarantees
that the hosts are trusted (e.g. corporate intranets and private
networks).
8. IANA Considerations
IANA Request for RA PIO registry for RESERVE2
9. Contributors
Brian Carpenter.
10. Acknowledgements
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6]
Bourbaki, N., "IPv6 is Classless", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-11, 29
September 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-11>.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-6lobac]
Lynn, K., Martocci, J., Neilson, C., and S. Donaldson,
"Transmission of IPv6 over Master-Slave/Token-Passing (MS/
TP) Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-6lo-6lobac-08, 13 March 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-
6lobac-08>.
[I-D.ietf-6lowpan-btle]
Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over BLUETOOTH Low Energy", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle-12, 12 February 2013,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-
btle-12>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
[I-D.mishra-v6ops-variable-iids-problem-statement]
Mishra, G. S., Shytyi, D., Petrescu, A., Kottapalli, N.,
and D. Mudric, "SLAAC Prefixes with Variable Interface ID
(IID) Problem Statement", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-iids-problem-statement-
01, 23 July 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-iids-problem-statement-01>.
[I-D.templin-aerolink]
Templin, F., "Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization
(AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-
aerolink-82, 10 May 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-
aerolink-82>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2450] Hinden, R., "Proposed TLA and NLA Assignment Rule",
RFC 2450, DOI 10.17487/RFC2450, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2450>.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC2467] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI
Networks", RFC 2467, DOI 10.17487/RFC2467, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2467>.
[RFC2470] Crawford, M., Narten, T., and S. Thomas, "Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks", RFC 2470,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2470, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2470>.
[RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM
Networks", RFC 2492, DOI 10.17487/RFC2492, January 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2492>.
[RFC2497] Souvatzis, I., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet
Networks", RFC 2497, DOI 10.17487/RFC2497, January 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2497>.
[RFC2526] Johnson, D. and S. Deering, "Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast
Addresses", RFC 2526, DOI 10.17487/RFC2526, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2526>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
[RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2529, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2529>.
[RFC2590] Conta, A., Malis, A., and M. Mueller, "Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks Specification",
RFC 2590, DOI 10.17487/RFC2590, May 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2590>.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
[RFC3146] Fujisawa, K. and A. Onoe, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC 3146, DOI 10.17487/RFC3146,
October 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3146>.
[RFC3177] IAB and IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address
Allocations to Sites", RFC 3177, DOI 10.17487/RFC3177,
September 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3177>.
[RFC3306] Haberman, B. and D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6
Multicast Addresses", RFC 3306, DOI 10.17487/RFC3306,
August 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3306>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3513, April 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3513>.
[RFC3587] Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global
Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, DOI 10.17487/RFC3587,
August 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3587>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
[RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3590, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3590>.
[RFC3627] Savola, P., "Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers
Considered Harmful", RFC 3627, DOI 10.17487/RFC3627,
September 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3627>.
[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Ed., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6
Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats",
RFC 3756, DOI 10.17487/RFC3756, May 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3756>.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, DOI 10.17487/RFC3775, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3775>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC3956] Savola, P. and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous
Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address",
RFC 3956, DOI 10.17487/RFC3956, November 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3956>.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
[RFC4039] Park, S., Kim, P., and B. Volz, "Rapid Commit Option for
the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4
(DHCPv4)", RFC 4039, DOI 10.17487/RFC4039, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4039>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, "Transmission of
IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets
over Fibre Channel", RFC 4338, DOI 10.17487/RFC4338,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4338>.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.
[RFC4548] Gray, E., Rutemiller, J., and G. Swallow, "Internet Code
Point (ICP) Assignments for NSAP Addresses", RFC 4548,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4548, May 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4548>.
[RFC4692] Huston, G., "Considerations on the IPv6 Host Density
Metric", RFC 4692, DOI 10.17487/RFC4692, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4692>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC4887] Thubert, P., Wakikawa, R., and V. Devarapalli, "Network
Mobility Home Network Models", RFC 4887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4887, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4887>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.
[RFC5121] Patil, B., Xia, F., Sarikaya, B., Choi, JH., and S.
Madanapalli, "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6
Convergence Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5121, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5121>.
[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5214, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5214>.
[RFC5375] Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., Chown, T., Bonness, O.,
and C. Hahn, "IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment
Considerations", RFC 5375, DOI 10.17487/RFC5375, December
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5375>.
[RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 5453, DOI 10.17487/RFC5453, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5453>.
[RFC5533] Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
Shim Protocol for IPv6", RFC 5533, DOI 10.17487/RFC5533,
June 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5533>.
[RFC5535] Bagnulo, M., "Hash-Based Addresses (HBA)", RFC 5535,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5535, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5535>.
[RFC5692] Jeon, H., Jeong, S., and M. Riegel, "Transmission of IP
over Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5692, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5692>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
[RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, DOI 10.17487/RFC5969, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5969>.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC6126] Chroboczek, J., "The Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 6126,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6126, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6126>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6164] Kohno, M., Nitzan, B., Bush, R., Matsuzaki, Y., Colitti,
L., and T. Narten, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-
Router Links", RFC 6164, DOI 10.17487/RFC6164, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6164>.
[RFC6177] Narten, T., Huston, G., and L. Roberts, "IPv6 Address
Assignment to End Sites", BCP 157, RFC 6177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6177, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6177>.
[RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6583, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6583>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
[RFC6741] Atkinson, RJ. and SN. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
Protocol (ILNP) Engineering Considerations", RFC 6741,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6741, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6741>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7094] McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D., and E. Osterweil,
"Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7094>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
/64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7368] Chown, T., Ed., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J.
Weil, "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles",
RFC 7368, DOI 10.17487/RFC7368, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368>.
[RFC7421] Carpenter, B., Ed., Chown, T., Gont, F., Jiang, S.,
Petrescu, A., and A. Yourtchenko, "Analysis of the 64-bit
Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", RFC 7421,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7421, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7421>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.
[RFC8084] Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit Breakers",
BCP 208, RFC 8084, DOI 10.17487/RFC8084, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8084>.
[RFC8156] Mrugalski, T. and K. Kinnear, "DHCPv6 Failover Protocol",
RFC 8156, DOI 10.17487/RFC8156, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8156>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8425] Troan, O., "IANA Considerations for IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery Prefix Information Option Flags", RFC 8425,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8425, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8425>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC8273] Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix
per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8273>.
Authors' Addresses
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Dmytro Shytyi
6WIND
Paris
France
Email: dmytro@shytyi.net
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Variable IID November 2024
Alexandre Petrescu
CEA, LIST
CEA Saclay
91190 Gif-sur-Yvette
France
Phone: +33169089223
Email: Alexandre.Petrescu@cea.fr
Naveen Kottapalli
Ciena
300 Concord Road
Billerica, MA 01821
United States of America
Phone: +1 978 223 4700
Email: nkottapalli@benu.net
Dusan Mudric
Ciena
Canada
Phone: +1-613-670-2425
Email: dmudric@ciena.com
Mishra, et al. Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 16]