IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia
March 3, 2003
Expires: September 3, 2003
IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 (2003). 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) March 3, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of this Document
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes & Conformance Groups
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
3. Sub-IP Layer
3.1 RFC2464 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
3.2 RFC2472 - IP version 6 over PPP
3.3 RFC2492 - IPv6 over ATM Networks
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. Transport and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer
5.2 DNS
5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
6. IPv4 Support and Transition
6.1 Transition Mechanisms
7. Mobility
7.1 Mobile IP
7.2 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification - RFC2473
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
Appendix A: Change history
Appendix B: Specifications Not Included
Appendix C: Notices
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
1. Introduction
The goal of this document is to define the set of functionality
required for an IPv6 node. Many IPv6 nodes will implement optional
or additional features, but all IPv6 nodes can be expected to
implement the mandatory requirements listed in this document.
This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details, and
references RFCs for this purpose. In case of any conflicting text,
this document takes less precedence than the normative RFCs, unless
additional clarifying text is included in this document.
During the process of writing this document, any issue raised
regarding the normative RFCs, the consensus is, whenever possible, to
fix the RFCs and not to add text in this document. However, it may be
useful to include this information in an appendix for informative
purposes.
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 John Postel's Robustness Principle:
Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. [RFC793].
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.
1.2 Description of IPv6 Nodes
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we
have the following definitions:
Description of an IPv6 Node
- 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
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
ULP Upper Layer Protocol
3. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
sending packet. By definition, these specifications are required
based upon what layer-2 is used. In general, it is reasonable to be
a conformant IPv6 node and NOT support some legacy interfaces.
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
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC-2464] MUST
be supported for nodes supporting Ethernet interfaces.
3.2 IP version 6 over PPP - RFC2472
IPv6 over PPP [RFC-2472] MUST be supported for nodes that use PPP.
3.3 IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC2492
IPv6 over ATM Networks [RFC2492] MUST be supported for nodes
supporting ATM interfaces. Additionally, the specification 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 receive fragment headers. However, if it
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
does not implement path MTU discovery it may not need to send
fragment headers. However, nodes that do not implement transmission
of fragment headers need to impose limitation to payload size of
layer 4 protocols.
The capability of being a final destination MUST be supported,
whereas the capability of being an intermediate destination MAY be
supported (i.e. - host functionality vs. router functionality).
RFC 2460 specifies extension headers and the processing for these
headers.
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. [RFC2460]
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. However, an implementation MAY support disabling
this function.
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. However, the
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
implementation MAY support the option of disabling this function.
Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) MUST be supported for all
paths between hosts and neighboring nodes. It is not required for
paths between routers. It is required for multicast. 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 (RFC2462 section 5.4
specifies DAD MUST take place on all unicast addresses).
Sending Router Solicitation MUST be supported for host
implementation, but MAY support a configuration option to disable
this functionality.
Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
host implementation s. However, the implementation MAY support the
option of disabling this function. The ability to understand specific
Router Advertisements 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 Function SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
Redirect Function MUST be supported.
4.3 Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size
4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981
Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. Nodes with a link
MTU larger than the minimum IPv6 link MTU (1280 octets) can use Path
MTU Discovery in order to discover the real path MTU. The relative
overhead of IPv6 headers is minimized through the use of longer
packets, thus making better use of the available bandwidth.
The IPv6 specification [RFC-2460] states in chapter 5 that "a minimal
IPv6 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself
to sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit
implementation of Path MTU Discovery."
If Path MTU Discovery is not implemented then the sending packet size
is limited to 1280 octets (standard limit in [RFC-2460]). However, if
this is done, the host MUST be able to receive packets with size up
to the link MTU before reassembly. This is because the node at the
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
other side of the link has no way of knowing less than the MTU is
accepted.
4.3.2 IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2675
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
4.4 ICMP for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - RFC2463
ICMPv6 [RFC-2463] MUST be supported.
4.5 Addressing
Currently, there is discussion on-going on support for site-local
addressing.
4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC2373
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-2373] MUST be supported.
Currently, this specification is being updated by [ADDRARCHv3].
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.
Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link local addresses
as described in this specification.
From 2462:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies
only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
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
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
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
Default Address Selection for IPv6 [DEFADDR] SHOULD be supported, if
a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or a node has
more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured.
If supported, the rules specified in the document MUST be
implemented. A node needs to belong to one site, however there is no
requirement that a node be able to belong to more than one site.
This draft has been approved as a proposed standard.
4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCP [DHCPv6]
is the standard stateful address configuration protocol. See section
5.3 for details on DHCP.
4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] MUST be supported by nodes
supporting multicast applications. A primary IPv6 multicast
application is Neighbor Discovery (all those solicited-node mcast
addresses must be joined).
When MLDv2 [MLDv2] has been completed, it SHOULD take precedence over
MLD.
5. Transport Layer and DNS
5.1 Transport Layer
5.1.1 TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms - RFC2147
This specification MUST be supported if jumbograms are implemented
[RFC-2675]. One open issue is if this document needs to be updated,
as it refers to an obsoleted document.
5.2 DNS
DNS, as described in [RFC-1034], [RFC-1035], [RFC-1886], [RFC-3152]
and [RFC-3363] MAY be supported. Not all nodes will need to resolve
addresses. Note that RFC 1886 is currently being updated [RFC-1886-
BIS].
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
5.2.2 Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's - RFC2732
RFC 2732 MUST be supported if applications on the node use URL's.
5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be
unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses
when it is connected to a link over which 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). An IPv6 node that receives a
router advertisement with the 'M' flag set and that contains
advertised prefixes will configure interfaces with both stateless
autoconfiguration addresses and addresses obtained through DHCP.
For those IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see
section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router,
IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP.
For IPv6 Nodes that do not implement DHCP, the 'M' flag of a Router
Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in the absence of a
router, this type of node is not required to initiate DHCP.
An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be
unable to dynamically obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local
addresses when it is connected to a link over which 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). In this
situation, the IPv6 Node will be unable to communicate with other
off-link nodes unless a global or site-local IPv6 address is manually
configured.
6. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
6.1 Transition Mechanisms
IPv6 nodes SHOULD use native address instead of transition-based
addressing.
6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893
If an IPv6 node implement dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
MUST be supported.
This document is currently being updated.
7. Mobility
Currently, the MIPv6 specification [MIPv6] is nearing completion.
Mobile IPv6 places some requirements on IPv6 nodes. This document is
not meant to prescribe behaviors, but to capture the consensus of
what should be done for IPv6 nodes with respect to Mobile IPv6.
7.1 Mobile IP
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.
Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
correspondent nodes. Routers do not need to support route
optimization.
Routers MAY support home agent functionality.
Routers SHOULD support the requirements set for all IPv6 routers.
7.2 Securing Signaling between Mobile Nodes and Home Agents
The security mechanisms described in [MIPv6-HASEC] MUST be supported
by nodes implementing mobile node or home agent functionality
specified in Mobile IP [MIPv6].
7.3 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification - RFC2473
Generic Packet Tunneling [RFC-2473] MUST be suppored for nodes
implementing mobile node functionality or Home Agent functionality of
Mobile IP [MIPv6].
8. Security
This section describes the specification of IPsec for the IPv6 node.
Other issues that IPsec cannot resolve are described in the security
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
considerations.
8.1 Basic Architecture
Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401] MUST be
supported.
8.2 Security Protocols
ESP [RFC-2406] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-2402] MUST be supported.
8.3 Transforms and Algorithms
Current IPsec RFCs specify the support of certain transforms and
algorithms, NULL encryption, DES-CBC, HMAC-SHA-1-96, and HMAC-MD5-96.
The requirements for these are discussed first, and then additional
algorithms 3DES-CBC, AES-128-CBC, and HMAC-SHA-256-96 are discussed.
NULL encryption algorithm [RFC-2410] MUST be supported for providing
integrity service and also for debugging use. The "ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV" [RFC-2405] MUST be supported. Security
issues related to the use of DES are discussed in [DESDIFF],
[DESINT], [DESCRACK]. It is currently viewed as an inherently weak
algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended role. It is still
required by the existing IPsec RFCs, however. This document
recommends the use of ESP DES-CBC only where interoperability is
required with old implementations supporting DES-CBC.
The NULL authentication algorithm [RFC-2406] MUST be supported within
ESP. The use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within AH and ESP, described in [RFC-
2404] MUST be supported. The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within AH and ESP,
described in [RFC-2403] MUST be supported. An implementer MUST refer
to Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication [RFC-2104].
3DES-CBC does not suffer from the issues related to DES-CBC. 3DES-CBC
and ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms [RFC2451] MAY be supported. AES-
128-CBC [ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc] MUST be supported, as it is expected to
be a widely available, secure algorithm that is required for
interoperability. It is not required by the current IPsec RFCs,
however.
The "HMAC-SHA-256-96 Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec" [ipsec-ciph-
sha-256] MAY be supported.
8.4 Key Management Methods
Manual keying MUST be supported
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
IKE [RFC-2407] [RFC-2408] [RFC-2409] MAY be supported for unicast
traffic. Where key refresh, anti-replay features of AH and ESP, or
on-demand creation of SAs is required, automated keying MUST be
supported. Note that the IPsec WG is working on the successor to IKE
[SOI]. Key management methods for multicast traffic are also being
worked on by the MSEC WG.
9. Router Functionality
This section defines general considerations for IPv6 nodes that act
as routers. It is for future study if this document, or a separate
document is needed to fully define IPv6 router requirements.
Currently, this section does not discuss routing protocols.
9.1 General
9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert Option - RFC2711
The Router Alert Option [RFC-2711] MUST be supported by nodes that
perform packet forwarding at the IP layer (i.e. - the node is a
router).
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 hosts.
10.1 MIBs
In a general sense, MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support a
SNMP agent.
10.1.1 IP Forwarding Table MIB
Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific
portions of this MIB be supported.
10.1.2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific
portions of this MIB be supported.
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
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 describes the following:
The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].
For example, specific protocol documents and applications may require
the use of additional security mechanisms.
The use of ICMPv6 without IPsec can expose the nodes in question to
various kind of attacks including Denial-of-Service, Impersonation,
Man-in-the-Middle, and others. Note that only manually keyed IPsec
can protect some of the ICMPv6 messages that are related to
establishing communications. This is due to chicken-and-egg problems
on running automated key management protocols on top of IP. However,
manually keyed IPsec may require a large number of SAs in order to
run on a large network due to the use of many addresses during ICMPv6
Neighbor Discovery.
The use of wide-area multicast communications has an increased risk
from specific security threats, compared with the same threats in
unicast [MC-THREAT].
An implementer should also consider the analysis of anycast
[ANYCAST].
12. References
12.1 Normative
[ADDRARCHv3] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", Work in progress.
[DEFADDR] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", Work
in progress.
[DHCPv6] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Work in progress.
[MIPv6] Johnson D. and Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
IPv6", Work in progress.
[MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli, F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling betweenMobile Nodes and
Home Agents", draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec-03
(work in progress), February 2003.
[MLDv2] Vida, R. et al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version
2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress.
[RFC-1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC-1886] Thomson, S. et al.and Huitema, C., "DNS Extensions to
support IP version 6", RFC 1886, December 1995.
[RFC-1886-BIS] Thomson, S., et al., "DNS Extensions to support IP
version 6" Work In Progress.
[RFC-1981] McCann, J., Mogul, J. and Deering, S., "Path MTU
Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC-2096-BIS] Wasserman, M. (ed), "IP Forwarding Table MIB", Work in
Progress.
[RFC-2011-BIS] Routhier, S (ed), "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", 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-2373] Hinden, R. and Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[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.
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
[RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1
within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[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 Algorithm
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 Pro-
tocol 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.
[RFC-2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W. and Haberman, B., "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
1999.
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
[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-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver-
sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System
(DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.
12.2 Non-Normative
[ANYCAST] Hagino, J and Ettikan K., "An Analysis of IPv6 Anycast"
Work in Progress.
[DESDIFF] Biham, E., Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of
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.
[MC-THREAT] Ballardie A. and Crowcroft, J.; Multicast-Specific Secu-
rity Threats and Counter-Measures; In Proceedings "Sympo-
sium on Network and Distributed System Security", Febru-
ary 1995, pp.2-16.
[SOI] C. Madson, "Son-of-IKE Requirements", Work in Progress.
[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-2147] Borman, D., "TCP and UDP over IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2147,
May 1997.
[RFC-2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2462, December 1998.
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
[RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over
ATM Networks", RFC2492, January 1999.
[RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo-
grams", RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC-2732] R. Hinden, B. Carpenter, L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.
[RFC-2851] M. Daniele, B. Haberman, S. Routhier, J. Schoenwaelder,
"Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses",
RFC2851, June 2000.
[RFC-2893] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E., "Transition Mechanisms for
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.
[RFC-3019] B. Haberman, R. Worzella, "IP Version 6 Management Infor-
mation Base for the Multicast Listener Discovery Proto-
col", RFC3019, January 2001.
[IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002.
13. Authors and Acknowledgements
This document was written by the IPv6 Node Requirements design team:
Jari Arkko
[jari.arkko@ericsson.com]
Marc Blanchet
[marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca]
Samita Chakrabarti
[samita.chakrabarti@eng.sun.com]
Alain Durand
[alain.durand@sun.com]
Gerard Gastaud
[gerard.gastaud@alcatel.fr]
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
[itojun@iijlab.net]
Atsushi Inoue
[inoue@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
Masahiro Ishiyama
[masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
John Loughney
[john.loughney@nokia.com]
Okabe Nobuo
[nov@tahi.org]
Rajiv Raghunarayan
[raraghun@cisco.com]
Shoichi Sakane
[shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com]
Dave Thaler
[dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]
Juha Wiljakka
[juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas Narten, 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 (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com) or to:
John Loughney
Nokia Research Center
It„merenkatu 11-13
00180 Helsinki
Finland
Phone: +358 50 483 6242
Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com
Appendix A: Change history
The following is a list of changes since the previous version.
- Small updates based upon feedback from the IPv6 mailing list.
- Updated information on Stateful Address Autoconfiguration & DHCP.
- Updated MIBs section.
- Updated Mobile IP section.
- Rewrote Security section.
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
Appendix B: Specifications Not Included
Here is a list of documents considered, but not included in this document.
In general, Information documents are not considered to place requirements
on implementations. Experimental documents are just that, experimental,
and cannot place requirements on the general behavior of IPv6 nodes.
Upper Protocols
2428 FTP Extensions For IPv6 And NATs
Compression
2507 IP Header Compression
2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers For Low-Speed Serial Links
2509 IP Header Compression Over PPP
Informational
1752 The Recommendation For The IP Next Generation Protocol API RFCs
1881 IPv6 Address Allocation Management.
1887 An Architecture For Ipv6 Unicast Address Allocation
2104 HMAC: Keyed-Hashing For Message Authentication
2374 An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format.
2450 Proposed TLA And NLA Assignment Rules.
Experimental
2874 DNS Extensions To Support Ipv6 Address Aggregation
2471 IPv6 Testing Address Allocation.
Other
2526 Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast
2732 Format For Literal IPv6 Addr In URLs
2894 Router Renumbering
3122 Extensions To IPv6 ND For Inverse Discovery
Appendix C: Notices
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to per-
tain 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; neither does it represent that it has made
any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of
rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses
to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a
general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights
by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from
the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft August 28, 2003
rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Loughney (editor) March 3, 2003 [Page 21]
