IPv6 Working Group John Loughney (ed)
Internet-Draft Nokia
August 25, 2003
Expires: February 25, 2004
IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-05.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) August 25, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft
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
Notices
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft
1. Introduction
The goal of this document is to define the set of functionality
required for an IPv6 node; the functionality common to both hosts and
routers. 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.
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
From Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC-2460] we
have the following definitions:
Description of an IPv6 Node
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft
- a device that implements IPv6
Description of an IPv6 router
- a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly addressed to
itself.
Description of an IPv6 Host
- any node that is not a router.
2. Abbreviations Used in This Document
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
AH Authentication Header
DAD Duplicate Address Detection
ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
IKE Internet Key Exchange
MIB Management Information Base
MLD Multicast Listener Discovery
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit
NA Neighbor Advertisement
NBMA Non-Broadcast Multiple Access
ND Neighbor Discovery
NS Neighbor Solicitation
NUD Neighbor Unreachability Detection
PPP Point-to-Point Protocol
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
ULP Upper Layer Protocol
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft
3. Sub-IP Layer
An IPv6 node must follow the RFC related to the link-layer that is
sending packets. 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
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 a limitation to the payload size
of layer 4 protocols.
The capability of being a final destination MUST be supported,
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft
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
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. However, when a node receives a unicast
Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message (that may be a NUD's NS), the node
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft
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).
A host implementation MUST support sending Router Solicitations, but
it MAY support a configuration option to disable this functionality.
Receiving and processing Router Advertisements MUST be supported for
host implementations. However, the implementation MAY support the
option of disabling this function. The ability to understand specific
Router Advertisement optionss 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 functionionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a
router, Redirect functionionality 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. It is expected that
most implementations will indeed support this, although the possible
exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not
justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet
fragmentation and reassembly.
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 support for site-local addressing.
4.5.1 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture - RFC3513
The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC-3513] MUST be supported.
4.5.2 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC2462
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft
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
available. It is noted that a number of applications do not work
with addresses generated with this method, while other applications
work quite well with them.
4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484
Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC-3484] 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.
4.5.5 Stateful Address Autoconfiguration
Stateful Address Autoconfiguration MAY be supported. DHCP [RFC-3315]
is the standard stateful address configuration protocol, see section
5.3 for DHCPv6 support.
For nodes which do not support Stateful Address Autoconfiguration,
the node may be unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-
local addresses when it receives a router advertisement with the 'M'
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft
flag (Managed address configuration) set and which contains no
prefixes advertised for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see
section 4.5.2).
4.6 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC2710
If an application is going join any-source multicast, it SHOULD
support MLDv1. If it is going to support Source-Specific Multicast,
it MUST support MLDv2 [MLDv2] and conform to the Source-Specific
Multicast overview document [RFC3569]; refer to Source-Specific
Multicast architecture document for details [SSMARCH].
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
names. Note that RFC 1886 is currently being updated [RFC-1886-BIS].
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) - RFC3315
5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration
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). 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.
An IPv6 node that receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag
set and that contains advertised prefixes will configure interfaces
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft
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.
5.3.2 Other stateful configuration
DHCP provides the ability to provide other configuration information
to the node. An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of
DHCP will be unable to obtain other configuration information such as
the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected to a link over
which the node receives a router advertisement in which the 'O' flag
("Other stateful configuration") is set.
For those IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP
upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see
section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router,
hosts that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. For IPv6 Nodes
that do not implement DHCP, the 'O' 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.
Stateless DHCPv6 [DHCPv6-SL], a subset of DHCPv6, can be used to
obtain configuration information. A node that uses stateless DHCP
must have obtained its IPv6 addresses through some other mechanism,
typically stateless address autoconfiguration.
6. IPv4 Support and Transition
IPv6 nodes MAY support IPv4.
6.1 Transition Mechanisms
IPv6 nodes SHOULD use native addressing instead of transition-based
addressing (according to the algorithms defined in RFC 3484).
6.1.1 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers - RFC2893
If an IPv6 node implements dual stack and/or tunneling, then RFC2893
MUST be supported.
This document is currently being updated.
7. Mobility
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft
7.1 Mobile IP
The Mobile IPv6 [MIPv6] specification defines requirements for the
following types of nodes:
- mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents
- all IPv6 routers
Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality.
Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
correspondent nodes.
Routers do not need to support route optimization or home agent
functionality.
Routers SHOULD support the generic mobile IP requirements.
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 supported 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
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
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft
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] SHOULD
NOT be supported. Security issues related to the use of DES are
discussed in [DESDIFF], [DESINT], [DESCRACK]. It is still listed as
required by the existing IPsec RFCs, but as it is currently viewed as
an inherently weak algorithm, and no longer fulfills its intended
role.
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.
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 Security Associations (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-Specific Functionality
This section defines general host considerations for IPv6 nodes that
act as routers. Currently, this section does not discuss routin-
specific requirements.
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft
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 Management Information Base Modules (MIBs)
At least the following two MIBs SHOULD be supported MIBs SHOULD be
supported by nodes that support an 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.
11. Security Considerations
This draft does not affect the security of the Internet, but
implementations of IPv6 are expected to support a minimum set of
security features to ensure security on the Internet. "IP Security
Document Roadmap" [RFC-2411] is important for everyone to read.
The security considerations in RFC2460 describe the following:
The security features of IPv6 are described in the Security
Architecture for the Internet Protocol [RFC-2401].
For example, specific protocol documents and applications may require
the use of additional security mechanisms.
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft
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
[DHCPv6-SL] R. Droms, "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6
Service", Work in Progress.
[MIPv6] D. Johnson and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6",
Work in progress.
[MIPv6-HASEC] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli, F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes and
Home Agents", Work in Progress.
[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.
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft
[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-2401] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for
the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC-2402] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication
Header", RFC 2402, November 1998.
[RFC-2403] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-MD5 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
[RFC-2404] Madson, C., and Glenn, R., "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1
within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[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
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft
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.
[RFC-2711] Partridge, C. and Jackson, A., "IPv6 Router Alert
Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.
[RFC-3041] Narten, T. and Draves, R., "Privacy Extensions for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC
3041, January 2001.
[RFC-3152] Bush, R., "Delegation of IP6.ARPA", RFC 3152, August
2001.
[RFC-3315] Bound, J. et al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC-3363] Bush, R., et al., "Representing Internet Protocol ver-
sion 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System
(DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.
[RFC-3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for IPv6", RFC
3484, February 2003.
[RFC-3513] Hinden, R. and Deering, S. "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
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
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft
DES-like cryptosystems", Journal of Cryptology Vol 4, Jan
1991.
[DESCRACK] Cracking DES, O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastapol, CA 2000.
[DESINT] Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without
Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF, Danvers,
MA, April 1995.
[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.
[RFC-2492] G. Armitage, M. Jork, P. Schulter, G. Harter, IPv6 over
ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999.
[RFC-2675] Borman, D., Deering, S. and Hinden, B., "IPv6 Jumbo-
grams", RFC 2675, August 1999.
[RFC-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-3569] S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
[IPv6-RH] P. Savola, "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft
Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002.
[SSM-ARCH] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "SSM Architecture", Work in Pro-
gress.
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]
Masahiro Ishiyama
[masahiro@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp]
John Loughney
[john.loughney@nokia.com]
Rajiv Raghunarayan
[raraghun@cisco.com]
Shoichi Sakane
[shouichi.sakane@jp.yokogawa.com]
Dave Thaler
[dthaler@windows.microsoft.com]
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft
Juha Wiljakka
[juha.wiljakka@Nokia.com]
The authors would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Jim Bound, Brian Car-
penter, Ralph Droms, Christian Huitema, Adam Machalek, Thomas 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
Itamerenkatu 11-13
00180 Helsinki
Finland
Phone: +358 50 483 6242
Email: John.Loughney@Nokia.com
Notices
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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
rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Loughney (editor) August 25, 2003 [Page 19]
