IPv6 Addresses for Ad Hoc Networks
draft-templin-6man-mla-25
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) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Fred Templin | ||
| Last updated | 2024-09-24 | ||
| Replaces | draft-templin-6man-ula-uuid | ||
| 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-templin-6man-mla-25
Network Working Group F. L. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology
Updates: rfc4007, rfc5889, rfc6724 (if approved) 24 September 2024
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 28 March 2025
IPv6 Addresses for Ad Hoc Networks
draft-templin-6man-mla-25
Abstract
Ad Hoc networks often present a challenging environment for IPv6
addressing due to the undetermined neighborhood properties of their
interfaces. IPv6 nodes assign IPv6 addresses to their Ad Hoc
networks that must be locally unique. IPv6 nodes must therefore be
able to assign topology-independent addresses when topology-oriented
IPv6 address delegation services are either absent or only
intermittently available. This document introduces a new IPv6
address type that a node can autonomously assign for each of its Ad-
Hoc networks.
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/.
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 28 March 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
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
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. IPv6 Ad Hoc Network Local Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Assigning an MLA to an Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. MLAs in the Scoped Addressing Architecture . . . . . . . . . 5
5. MLAs for Ad Hoc Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Obtaining and Assigning IPv6 ULAs/GUAs . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Address Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
When two or more IPv6 [RFC8200] nodes come together within an Ad Hoc
network operating region, they must be able to assign unique
addresses and exchange IPv6 packets with peers even if there is no
Internetworking infrastructure present. A classical example is a
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) where wireless nodes within a common
radio frequency locality discover multihop routes to support peer-to-
peer communications. However, arbitrary collections of fixed nodes
interconnected by a potentially sparse collection of links are also
examples. See [RFC5889] for further explanation of what is meant by
an Ad Hoc network.
Ad Hoc networks often include IPv6 nodes that configure interface
connections to links with undetermined connectivity properties such
that multihop traversal may be necessary to span the network. The
transitive property of connectivity for conventional shared media
links is therefore not assured, while nodes must still be able to
configure IPv6 addresses that are unique within the local Ad Hoc
network. This is true even for nodes that configure multiple
interface connections to the same Ad Hoc network as a localized
multihop forwarding domain with multiple links.
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
By its nature, the term "Ad Hoc network" implies logical groupings
whereas the historical term "site" suggested physical boundaries such
as a building or a campus. In particular, Ad Hoc networks can self-
organize amorphously even if they overlap with other (logical)
networks, split apart to form multiple smaller networks or join
together to form larger networks. Clustering has been suggested as a
means to organize these logical groupings, but Ad Hoc network
ecosystems are often in a constant state of flux and likely to change
over time. An address type that can be used by nodes that float
freely between logical Ad Hoc network boundaries is therefore
necessary.
The term "Ad Hoc" used throughout this document extends to include
isolated local IPv6 networks where peer to peer communications may
require multihop traversal of multiple links regardless of whether
the network is particularly mobile and/or spontaneously organized.
For any such isolated network (i.e., one for which IPv6
Internetworking routers are either absent or only intermittently
available), a topology-independent IPv6 addressing scheme that allows
peer nodes to communicate internally is necessary. Therefore, all
nodes that connect to such isolated IPv6 networks should be prepared
to operate according to this multilink Ad Hoc addressing model when
necessary. Each node then coordinates multihop forwarding services
at an IPv6-based architectural sublayer termed the "adaptation layer"
below the Internetworking layer but above the true link layer.
Section 6 of the "IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks" [RFC5889]
states that: "an IP address configured on this (Ad Hoc) interface
should be unique, at least within the routing domain" and: "no on-
link subnet prefix is configured on this (Ad Hoc) interface". The
section then continues to explain why IPv6 Link-Local Addresses
(LLAs) are of limited utility on links with undetermined
connectivity, to the point that they cannot be used exclusively
within Ad Hoc network domains. (Note that [RFC5498] provides IANA
allocations for MANET protocols as a complementary publication.)
[RFC5889] suggests Global Unicast [RFC4291] (aka "GUA") and Unique-
Local [RFC4193] (aka "ULA") addresses as Ad Hoc network addressing
candidates. However, GUAs and ULAs are topology-oriented address
types that must be obtained through either administrative actions or
an address autoconfiguration service based on IPv6 Internetworking
routers that connect the Ad Hoc network to other networks. (In
particular topology-oriented address types are typically obtained
through DHCPv6 messages and/or Router Advertisement Prefix
Information Options with prefix length shorter than 128.) Since such
Internetworking services may not always be available, however, this
document asserts that a topology-independent and unique Ad Hoc
network local IPv6 address type is needed. The address type may
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
include multiple sub-types, some of which may be coordinated with an
address attestation service and others that may be partially or fully
self-generated.
The key feature of these Ad Hoc network adaptation layer IPv6
addresses is that they must have excellent statistical uniqueness
properties such that there is little/no chance of conflicting with an
address assigned by another node. The addresses need not include
topology-oriented prefixes, since the (newly-formed) Ad Hoc networks
may not (yet) connect to established Internetworking topologies.
Ad Hoc network nodes must be able to use adaptation layer IPv6
addresses for continuous local communications and/or to coordinate
topology-oriented addresses for assignment on other interfaces. A
new "Multilink Local" scope for the IPv6 scoped addressing
architecture [RFC4007] with scope greater than LLA but lesser than
ULA/GUA is therefore needed. This document therefore defines a new
unique local unicast address variant known as "Multilink Local
Addresses (MLAs)".
2. IPv6 Ad Hoc Network Local Addressing
The IPv6 addressing architecture specified in [RFC4007], [RFC4193]
and [RFC4291] defines the supported IPv6 unicast/multicast/anycast
address forms with various scopes. ULAs and GUAs are typically
obtained through Stateless Address AutoConfiguration (SLAAC)
[RFC4862] and/or the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) [RFC8415], but these services require the presence of IPv6
network infrastructure which may not be immediately available in
spontaneously-formed Ad Hoc networks.
Interface connections to Ad Hoc networks have the interesting
property that a multihop router R will often need to forward packets
between nodes A and B even though R uses the same interface in the
inbound and outbound directions. Since nodes A and B may not be able
to communicate directly even though both can communicate directly
with R, the link connectivity property is intransitive and the IPv6
Neighbor Discovery (ND) Redirect service cannot be used. Conversely,
R may need to forward packets between nodes A and B via different
interfaces within a single Ad Hoc network that includes multiple
distinct links/regions. Due to these indeterminant multilink
properties, exclusive use of IPv6 LLAs is also out of scope.
This document therefore introduces a new IPv6 MLA address type based
on one or more well-formed IPv6 prefixes "TBD::/N" (see IANA
Considerations). After a node creates an MLA, it can use the address
within the context of spontaneously-organized Ad Hoc networks in
which two or more nodes come together in the absence of stable
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
supporting infrastructure and can still exchange IPv6 packets with
little or no chance of address collisions. The node can limit MLA
usage to bootstrapping the assignment of topology-oriented IPv6
addresses through other means mentioned earlier. The node can
instead extend its MLA usage to longer term patterns such as
sustained communications with single-hop neighbors on a local link or
even between Ad Hoc network multihop peers.
3. Assigning an MLA to an Interface
IPv6 MLAs are topology-independent and can therefore be assigned to a
virtual interface of the node with a /128 prefix length (i.e., as a
singleton address). The node can then begin to use an MLA as the
source/destination address of IPv6 packets that are forwarded over an
interface connection to an Ad Hoc network multihop forwarding region.
A node can specifically assign an MLA to a loopback interface to
support the operation of an Ad Hoc network routing protocol while
also assigning the MLA to an Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI)
Interface [I-D.templin-6man-omni3]. In that case, MLAs based on a
global unicast (or special-use) IPv6 prefix can support extended
communications with remote peers over the OMNI link overlay network.
MLAs may then serve as a basis for multihop forwarding and/or for
local neighborhood discovery over other IPv6 interface types. Due to
their uniqueness properties, the node can assign MLAs as optimistic
addresses per [RFC4429], however it should deprecate an MLA if it
detects in-service duplication.
4. MLAs in the Scoped Addressing Architecture
Returning to a debate from more than 20 years ago, a case could be
made for reclaiming the deprecated site-local address prefix
"fec0::/10" for use as a top-level MLA prefix. However, some
implementations still honor the deprecation and continue to regard
the prefix as a non-functional historical artifact.
[RFC3879] documents the deprecation rationale including the assertion
that "Site is an Ill-Defined Concept". However, the concept of an Ad
Hoc network is a coherent logical one based on time-varying
(multilink) connectivity and not necessarily one constrained by
physical boundaries. Especially in Ad Hoc networks that employ a
proactive local routing protocol the list of available adaptation
layer addresses in each network is continuously updated for temporal
consistency.
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
For example, an IPv6 node may connect to multiple distinct Ad Hoc
networks with a first set of interfaces connected to network "A", a
second set of interfaces connected to network "B", etc. According to
the scoped IPv6 addressing architecture [RFC4007], the node would
assign a separate MLA to virtual interfaces associated with each Ad
Hoc network interface set A, B, etc. and maintain separate Ad Hoc
network multihop routing protocol instances for each set. MLAs A, B,
etc. then become the router IDs for the separate routing protocol
instances, but the IPv6 node may elect to redistribute discovered
adaptation layer routes between the instances. The uniqueness
properties of MLAs therefore transcend logical Ad Hoc network
boundaries but without "leaking" into external networks.
A means for entering Ad Hoc network local IPv6 Zone Identifiers in
user interfaces is necessary according to [I-D.ietf-6man-zone-ui].
Examples of an Ad Hoc network local unicast address qualified by a
zone identifier are as follows:
TBD::884e:9d2a:73fc:2d94%netA
TBD::c63d:9724:fca:1237%netB
This document updates the IPv6 scoped addressing architecture
[RFC4007] by introducing a "Multilink-Local" unicast addressing
scope. In particular, this document adds a third unicast address
scope to Section 4 of [RFC4007] as follows:
* Multilink-Local scope, for uniquely identifying a node's attached
Ad Hoc networks.
The size relationship among scopes is further updated as:
* For unicast scopes, link-local is a smaller scope than Multilink-
Local, which is a smaller scope than global.
In [RFC4007], Section 5 under: "Zones of the different scopes are
instantiated as follows", add the new bullet:
* Each Ad Hoc network and the interfaces attached to that Ad Hoc
network comprise a single zone of Multilink-Local scope (for
unicast).
5. MLAs for Ad Hoc Networks
This document updates [RFC5889] to add a new address type "Multilink-
Local" to the list of IPv6 address types found in Section 1 as:
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
* For IPv6, these addresses may be global [RFC3587], Unique-Local
[RFC4193], Multilink-Local [RFCXXXX] or Link-Local [RFC4291].
6. Obtaining and Assigning IPv6 ULAs/GUAs
IPv6 nodes assign MLAs to an IPv6 virtual interface for use only
within the scope of locally connected networks. These MLAs can
appear in Ad Hoc network multihop routing protocol control messages
and can also appear as the source and destination addresses for IPv6
packets forwarded within the locally connected Ad Hoc networks.
In order to support communications beyond the Ad Hoc local scope,
each IPv6 node is required to obtain an IPv6 ULA/GUA pair through an
IPv6 Internetworking border router or proxy that connects the Ad Hoc
network to other networks. Since the border router/proxy may be
multiple adaptation layer hops away, however, the IPv6 node
configures and engages an OMNI Interface as specified in
[I-D.templin-6man-omni3]. The IPv6 node assigns the ULA/GUA to the
OMNI interface which forwards original packets by inserting an
adaptation layer IPv6 encapsulation header that uses MLAs as source/
destination addresses while the original packet uses GUAs/ULAs.
The IPv6 Internetworking border router/proxy may be configured as an
IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6) gateway that
maintains a 1:1 relationship between the ULA on the "inside" and a
GUA on the "outside" as discussed in [RFC6296]. The NPTv6 gateway
will then statelessly translate each ULA into its corresponding GUA
(and vice versa) for IPv6 packets that transit between the inside and
outside domains.
The gateway provides service per the "ULA-Only" or "ULA+PA"
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations] connected network models.
The IPv6 node can then use the ULA for local-scoped communications
with internal peers and the GUA for global-scoped communications with
external peers via the gateway as either a "NPTv6 translator" or
"NPTv6 pass-through". IPv6 nodes can then select address pair
combinations according to IPv6 default address selection rules
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update].
After receiving a ULA+PA GUA delegation, IPv6 nodes that require
Provider-Independent (PI) GUAs can use the OMNI interface in
conjunction with the Automatic Extended Route Optimization (AERO)
global distributed mobility management service
[I-D.templin-6man-aero3] to request and maintain IPv6 and/or IPv4 PI
prefixes from the mobility service. The IPv6 node can then sub-
delegate GUAs from the PI prefixes to its attached downstream local
networks which may in turn engage an arbitrarily large IPv6 and/or
IPv4 "Internet of Things".
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
7. Address Selection
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)"
[RFC6724] provides a policy table that specifies precedence values
and preferred source prefixes for destination prefixes. "Preference
for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4 addresses in RFC6724"
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update] updates the policy table entries for
ULAs, IPv4 addresses and the 6to4 prefix (2002::/16).
This document proposes a further update to the policy table for IPv6
MLAs. The proposed update appears in the table below:
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update Updated
Prefix Precedence Label Prefix Precedence Label
::1/128 50 0 ::1/128 50 0
::/0 40 1 ::/0 40 1
::ffff:0:0/96 20 4 ::ffff:0:0/96 20 4
2002::/16 5 2 2002::/16 5 2
2001::/32 5 5 2001::/32 5 5
fc00::/7 30 13 fc00::/7 30 13
::/96 1 3 ::/96 1 3
fec0::/10 1 11 fec0::/10 1 11
3ffe::/16 1 12 3ffe::/16 1 12
TBD::/N 4 14 (*)
(*) value(s) changed in update
Figure 1: Policy Table Update for Multilink Local Addresses
With the proposed updates, this new MLA address type appears as a
lesser precedence than IPv6 GUAs, IPv6 ULAs and IPv4 addresses but as
a greater precedence than deprecated IPv6 prefixes.
8. Requirements
IPv6 nodes MUST assign unique MLAs to an IPv6 virtual interface
associated with each distinct Ad Hoc network. If the node becomes
aware that an MLA is already in use by another node, it instead
generates and assigns a new MLA.
IPv6 routers MAY forward IPv6 packets with MLA source or destination
addresses over multiple hops within the same Ad Hoc network as an
adaptation layer function.
IPv6 routers MUST NOT forward packets with MLA source or destination
addresses to a link outside the packet's Ad Hoc network of origin as
an adaptation layer service.
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
IPv6 nodes MAY assign MLAs to the OMNI interface allowing routers to
forward original packets with MLA addresses at the IPv6 layer. In
that case, the MLAs appear as /128 routes in the OMNI link IPv6
routing service.
9. Implementation Status
In progress.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA considerations will be updated with specific requirements for
MLA delegations prior to publication.
11. Security Considerations
IPv6 MLAs include very large uniquely-assigned bit strings in both
the prefix and interface identifier components which together provide
strong uniqueness properties.
With the random generation procedures expected for the various MLA
types, the only apparent opportunity for MLA duplication would be
through either intentional or unintentional misconfiguration.
An IPv6 node that configures an MLA and assigns it to a virtual
interface with an optimistic expectation of uniqueness should
therefore be prepared to deprecate the MLA and generate/assign a new
one if it detects a legitimate duplication.
12. Acknowledgements
This work was inspired by continued investigations into 5G MANET
operations in cooperation with the Virginia Tech National Security
Institute (VTNSI).
Emerging discussions both in-person and on the IPv6 maintenance
(6man) and MANET mailing lists continue to shape updated versions of
this document. The author acknowledges all those whose useful
comments have helped further the understanding of this proposal.
Honoring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4007, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4007>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E., Ed. and M. Townsley, Ed., "IP Addressing
Model in Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, DOI 10.17487/RFC5889,
September 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5889>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update]
Buraglio, N., Chown, T., and J. Duncan, "Prioritizing
known-local IPv6 ULAs through address selection policy",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-
update-10, 19 September 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-
rfc6724-update-10>.
[I-D.ietf-6man-zone-ui]
Carpenter, B. E. and R. M. Hinden, "Entering IPv6 Zone
Identifiers in User Interfaces", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-zone-ui-03, 8 September
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
6man-zone-ui-03>.
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations]
Jiang, S., Liu, B., and N. Buraglio, "Considerations For
Using Unique Local Addresses", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations-04, 17
May 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations-04>.
[I-D.templin-6man-aero3]
Templin, F., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization
(AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-
6man-aero3-17, 11 September 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-6man-
aero3-17>.
[I-D.templin-6man-omni3]
Templin, F., "Transmission of IP Packets over Overlay
Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni3-17, 11 September
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
templin-6man-omni3-17>.
[RFC3879] Huitema, C. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
Addresses", RFC 3879, DOI 10.17487/RFC3879, September
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3879>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5498] Chakeres, I., "IANA Allocations for Mobile Ad Hoc Network
(MANET) Protocols", RFC 5498, DOI 10.17487/RFC5498, March
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5498>.
[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>.
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 MLAs September 2024
[RFC9562] Davis, K., Peabody, B., and P. Leach, "Universally Unique
IDentifiers (UUIDs)", RFC 9562, DOI 10.17487/RFC9562, May
2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9562>.
Appendix A. Change Log
<< RFC Editor - remove prior to publication >>
Differences from earlier versions:
Draft -23 to -24
* Change reference to RFC6296.
* Added more explanation about Ad Hoc Networks.
* MLAs now assigned only to a virtual interface associated with
the Ad-Hoc network and not the physical interfaces themselves.
* Added specifics of how this document updates other RFCs.
Author's Address
Fred L. Templin (editor)
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
United States of America
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Templin Expires 28 March 2025 [Page 12]