IPv6 Operations                                               L. Colitti
Internet-Draft                                                   V. Cerf
Intended status: Best Current Practice                            Google
Expires: September 10, 2016                                  S. Cheshire
                                                             D. Schinazi
                                                              Apple Inc.
                                                           March 9, 2016

               Host address availability recommendations


   This document recommends that networks provide general-purpose end
   hosts with multiple global IPv6 addresses when they attach, and
   describes the benefits of and the options for doing so.

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 http://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 September 10, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Common IPv6 deployment model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Benefits of providing multiple addresses  . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Problems with restricting the number of addresses per host  .   4
   5.  Overcoming limits using Network Address Translation . . . . .   5
   6.  Options for providing more than one address . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Number of addresses required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Operational considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  Host tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Address space management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.3.  Addressing link layer scalability issues via IP routing .  10
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   In most aspects, the IPv6 protocol is very similar to IPv4.  This
   similarity can create a tendency to think of IPv6 as 128-bit IPv4,
   and thus lead network designers and operators to apply identical
   configurations and operational practices to both.  This is generally
   a good thing because it eases the transition to IPv6 and the
   operation of dual-stack networks.  However, in some design and
   operational areas it can lead to carrying over IPv4 practices that
   are limiting or not appropriate in IPv6 due to differences between
   the protocols.

   One such area is IP addressing, particularly IP addressing of hosts.
   This is substantially different because unlike IPv4 addresses, IPv6
   addresses are not a scarce resource.  In IPv6, a single link provides
   over four billion times more address space than the whole IPv4
   Internet [RFC7421].  Thus, unlike IPv4, IPv6 networks are not forced
   by address availability considerations to provide only one address
   per host.  On the other hand, providing multiple addresses has many
   benefits including application functionality and simplicity, privacy,
   flexibility to accommodate future applications, and the ability to

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   provide Internet access without the use of NAT.  Providing only one
   IPv6 address per host negates these benefits.

   This document describes the benefits of providing multiple addresses
   per host and the problems with not doing so.  It recommends that
   networks provide general-purpose end hosts with multiple global
   addresses when they attach, and lists current options for doing so.
   It does not specify any changes to protocols or host behavior.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].

2.  Common IPv6 deployment model

   IPv6 is designed to support multiple addresses, including multiple
   global addresses, per interface ([RFC4291] section 2.1, [RFC6434]
   section 5.9.4).  Today, many general-purpose IPv6 hosts are
   configured with three or more addresses per interface: a link-local
   address, a stable address (e.g., using EUI-64 or Opaque Interface
   Identifiers [RFC7217]), one or more privacy addresses [RFC4941], and
   possibly one or more temporary or non-temporary addresses obtained
   using DHCPv6 [RFC3315].

   In most general-purpose IPv6 networks, including all 3GPP networks
   ([RFC6459] section 5.2) and Ethernet and Wi-Fi networks using SLAAC
   [RFC4862], IPv6 hosts have the ability to configure additional IPv6
   addresses from the link prefix(es) without explicit requests to the

3.  Benefits of providing multiple addresses

   Today, there are many host functions that require more than one IP
   address to be available to the host, including:

   o  Privacy addressing to prevent tracking by off-network hosts

   o  Multiple processors inside the same device.  For example, in many
      mobile devices both the application processor and baseband
      processor need to communicate with the network, particularly for
      recent technologies like ePDG.

   o  Extending the network (e.g., "tethering").

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   o  Running virtual machines on hosts.

   o  Translation-based transition technologies such as 464XLAT
      [RFC6877] that provide IPv4 over IPv6.  Some of these technologies
      require the availability of a dedicated IPv6 address in order to
      determine whether inbound packets are translated or native
      ([RFC6877] section 6.3).

   o  ILA ("Identifier-locator addressing") [I-D.herbert-nvo3-ila].

   o  Future applications (e.g., per-application IPv6 addresses [TARP]).

   Examples of how the availability of multiple addresses per host has
   already allowed substantial deployment of new applications without
   explicit requests to the network are:

   o  464XLAT. 464XLAT is usually deployed within a particular network,
      and in this model the operator can ensure that the network is
      appropriately configured to provide the CLAT with the additional
      IPv6 address it needs to implement 464XLAT.  However, there are
      deployments where the PLAT (i.e., NAT64) is provided as a service
      by a different network, without the knowledge or cooperation of
      the residential ISP (e.g., the IPv6v4 Exchange Service
      <http://www.jpix.ad.jp/en/service/ipv6v4.html>).  This type of
      deployment is only possible because those residential ISPs provide
      multiple IP addresses to their users, and thus those users can
      freely obtain the extra IPv6 address required to run 464XLAT.

   o  /64 sharing [RFC7278].  When the topology supports it, this is a
      way to provide IPv6 tethering without needing to wait for network
      operators to deploy DHCPv6 PD, which is only available in 3GPP
      release 10 ([RFC6459] section 5.3).

4.  Problems with restricting the number of addresses per host

   Providing a restricted number of addresses per host implies that
   functions that require multiple addresses will either be unavailable
   (e.g., if the network provides only one IPv6 address per host, or if
   the host has reached the limit of the number of addresses available),
   or that the functions will only be available after an explicit
   request to the network is granted.  The necessity of explicit
   requests has the following drawbacks:

   o  Increased latency, because a provisioning operation, and possibly
      human intervention with an update to the service level agreement,
      must complete before the functionality is available.

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   o  Uncertainty, because it is not known in advance if a particular
      operation function will be available.

   o  Complexity, because implementations need to deal with failures and
      somehow present them to the user.  Failures may manifest as
      timeouts, which may be slow and frustrating to users.

   o  Increased load on the network's provisioning servers.

   Some operators may desire to configure their networks to limit the
   number of IPv6 addresses per host.  Reasons might include hardware
   limitations (e.g., TCAM or neighbor cache table size constraints),
   business models (e.g., a desire to charge the network's users on a
   per-device basis), or operational consistency with IPv4 (e.g., an IP
   address management system that only supports one address per host).
   However, hardware limitations are expected to ease over time, and an
   attempt to generate additional revenue by charging per device may
   prove counterproductive if customers respond (as they did with IPv4)
   by using NAT, which results in no additional revenue, but leads to
   more operational problems and higher support costs.

5.  Overcoming limits using Network Address Translation

   These limits can mostly be overcome by end hosts by using NAT, and
   indeed in IPv4 most of these functions are provided by using NAT on
   the host.  Thus, the limits could be overcome in IPv6 as well by
   implementing NAT66 on the host.

   Unfortunately NAT has well-known drawbacks.  For example, it causes
   application complexity due to the need to implement NAT traversal.
   It hinders development of new applications.  On mobile devices, it
   reduces battery life due to the necessity of frequent keepalives,
   particularly for UDP.  Applications using UDP that need to work on
   most of the Internet are forced to send keepalives at least every 30
   seconds <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-tsvarea-
   10.pdf>.  For example, the QUIC protocol uses a 15-second keepalive
   [I-D.tsvwg-quic-protocol].  Other drawbacks of NAT are well known and
   documented [RFC2993].  While IPv4 NAT is inevitable due to the
   limited amount of IPv4 space available, that argument does not apply
   to IPv6.  Guidance from the IAB is that deployment of IPv6 NAT is not
   desirable [RFC5902].

   The desire to overcome the problems listed in Section 4 without
   disabling any features has resulted in developers implementing IPv6
   NAT.  There are fully-stateful address+port NAT66 implementations in
   client operating systems today: for example, Linux has supported
   NAT66 since late 2012 <http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.7#head-
   103e14959eeb974bbd4e862df8afe7c118ba2beb>.  A popular software

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   hypervisor also recently implemented NAT66 to work around these
   issues <https://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-29954>.  Wide
   deployment of networks that provide a restricted number of addresses
   will cause proliferation of NAT66 implementations.

   This is not a desirable outcome.  It is not desirable for users
   because they may experience application brittleness.  It is likely
   not desirable for network operators either, as they may suffer higher
   support costs, and even when the decision to provide only one IPv6
   address per device is dictated by the network's business model, there
   may be little in the way of incremental revenue, because devices can
   share their IPv6 address with other devices.  Finally, it is not
   desirable for operating system manufacturers and application
   developers, who will have to build more complexity, lengthening
   development time and/or reducing the time spent on other features.

   Indeed, it could be argued that the main reason for deploying IPv6,
   instead of continuing to scale the Internet using only IPv4 and
   large-scale NAT44, is because doing so can provide all the hosts on
   the planet with end-to-end connectivity that is constrained not by
   accidental technical limitations, but only by intentional security

6.  Options for providing more than one address

   Multiple IPv6 addresses can be provided in the following ways:

   o  Using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].  SLAAC allows
      hosts to create global IPv6 addresses on demand by simply forming
      new addresses from the global prefix(es) assigned to the link.
      Typically, SLAAC is used on shared links, but it is also possible
      to use SLAAC while providing a dedicated /64 prefix to each host.
      This is the case, for example, if the host is connected via a
      point-to-point link such as in 3GPP networks, on a network where
      each host has its own dedicated VLAN, or on a wireless network
      where every MAC address is placed in its own broadcast domain.

   o  Using stateful DHCPv6 address assignment [RFC3315].  Most DHCPv6
      clients only ask for one non-temporary address, but the protocol
      allows requesting multiple temporary and even multiple non-
      temporary addresses, and the server could choose to provide
      multiple addresses.  It is also technically possible for a client
      to request additional addresses using a different DUID, though the
      DHCPv6 specification implies that this is not expected behavior
      ([RFC3315] section 9).  The DHCPv6 server will decide whether to
      grant or reject the request based on information about the client,
      including its DUID, MAC address, and so on.  The maximum number of

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

      IPv6 addresses that can be provided in a single DHCPv6 packet,
      given a typical MTU of 1500 bytes or smaller, is approximately 30.

   o  DHCPv6 prefix delegation [RFC3633].  DHCPv6 PD allows the client
      to request and be delegated a prefix, from which it can
      autonomously form other addresses.  If the prefix is shorter than
      /64, it can be divided into multiple subnets which can be further
      delegated to downstream clients.  If the prefix is a /64, it can
      be extended via L2 bridging, ND proxying [RFC4389] or /64 sharing
      [RFC7278], but it cannot be further subdivided, as a prefix longer
      than /64 is outside the current IPv6 specifications [RFC7421].
      While [RFC3633] assumes that the DHCPv6 client is a router, DHCPv6
      PD itself does not require that the client forward IPv6 packets
      not addressed to itself, and thus does not require that the client
      be an IPv6 router as defined in [RFC2460].

   |                          | SLAAC |    DHCPv6   | DHCPv6 |  DHCPv4 |
   |                          |       |   IA_NA /   |   PD   |         |
   |                          |       |    IA_TA    |        |         |
   | Can extend network       |  No+  |      No     |  Yes   |   Yes   |
   |                          |       |             |        | (NAT44) |
   | Can number "unlimited"   |  Yes* |     Yes*    |   No   |    No   |
   | endpoints                |       |             |        |         |
   | Uses stateful, request-  |   No  |     Yes     |  Yes   |   Yes   |
   | based assignment         |       |             |        |         |
   | Is immune to layer 3 on- |   No  |     Yes     |  Yes   |   Yes   |
   | link resource exhaustion |       |             |        |         |
   | attacks                  |       |             |        |         |

   [*] Subject to network limitations, e.g., ND cache entry size limits.
             [+] Except on certain networks, e.g., [RFC7278].

        Table 1: Comparison of multiple address assignment options

7.  Number of addresses required

   If we itemize the use cases from section Section 3, we can estimate
   the number of addresses currently used in normal operations.  In
   typical implementations, privacy addresses use up to 8 addresses -
   one per day ([RFC4941] section 3.5).  Current mobile devices may
   typically support 8 clients, with each one requiring one or more
   addresses.  A client might choose to run several virtual machines.
   Current implementations of 464XLAT require use of a separate address.
   Some devices require another address for their baseband chip.  Even a
   host performing just a few of these functions simultaneously might

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   need on the order of 20 addresses at the same time.  Future
   applications designed to use an address per application or even per
   resource will require many more.  These will not function on networks
   that enforce a hard limit on the number of addresses provided to

8.  Recommendations

   In order to avoid the problems described above, and preserve the
   Internet's ability to support new applications that use more than one
   IPv6 address, it is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 network deployments provide
   multiple IPv6 addresses from each prefix to general-purpose hosts.
   To support future use cases, it is RECOMMENDED to not impose a hard
   limit on the size of the address pool assigned to a host.
   Particularly, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to limit a host to only one IPv6
   address per prefix.

   Due to the drawbacks imposed by requiring explicit requests for
   address space (see section Section 4), it is RECOMMENDED that the
   network give the host the ability to use new addresses without
   requiring explicit requests.  This can be achieved either by allowing
   the host to form new addresses autonomously (e.g., via SLAAC), or by
   providing the host with a dedicated /64 prefix.  The prefix MAY be
   provided using DHCPv6 PD, SLAAC with per-device VLANs, or any other

   Using stateful address assignment (DHCPv6 IA_NA or IA_TA) to provide
   multiple addresses when the host connects (e.g. the approximately 30
   addresses that can fit into a single packet) would accommodate
   current clients, but sets a limit on the number of addresses
   available to hosts when they attach and would limit the development
   of future applications.

9.  Operational considerations

9.1.  Host tracking

   Some network operators - often operators of networks that provide
   services to third parties such as university campus networks - are
   required to track which IP addresses are assigned to which hosts on
   their network.  Maintaining persistent logs that map user IP
   addresses and timestamps to hardware identifiers such as MAC
   addresses may be used to avoid liability for copyright infringement
   or other illegal activity.

   It is worth noting that this requirement can be met without using
   DHCPv6 address assignment.  For example, it is possible to maintain
   these mappings by monitoring IPv6 neighbor table: routers typically

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   allow periodic dumps of the neighbor cache via SNMP or other means,
   and many can be configured to log every change to the neighbor cache.
   Using SLAAC with a dedicated /64 prefix simplifies tracking, as it
   does not require logging each address formed by the host, but only
   the prefix assigned to the host when it attaches to the network.
   Similarly, providing address space using DHCPv6 PD has the same
   tracking properties as DHCPv6 address assignment, but allows the
   network to provide unrestricted address space.

   Many large enterprise networks are fully dual-stack and implement
   address monitoring without using or supporting DHCPv6.  The authors
   are directly aware of several networks that operate in this way,
   including the Universities of Loughborough, Minnesota, Reading,
   Southampton, Wisconsin and Imperial College London, in addition to
   the enterprise networks of the authors' employers.

   It should also be noted that using DHCPv6 address assignment does not
   ensure that the network can reliably track the IPv6 addresses used by
   hosts.  On any shared network without L2 edge port security, hosts
   are able to choose their own addresses regardless of what address
   provisioning methodology is in use.  The only way to restrict the
   addresses used by hosts is to use layer 2 security mechanisms that
   enforce that particular IPv6 addresses are used by particular link-
   layer addresses (for example, SAVI [RFC7039]).  If those mechanisms
   are available, it is possible to use them to provide tracking; this
   form of tracking is more secure and reliable than server logs because
   it operates independently of how addresses are allocated.  Finally,
   tracking address information via DHCPv6 server logs is likely to
   become decreasingly viable due to ongoing efforts to improve the
   privacy of DHCPv6 [I-D.ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile].

9.2.  Address space management

   In IPv4, all but the world's largest networks can be addressed using
   private space [RFC1918], with each host receiving one IPv4 address.
   Many networks can be numbered in which has roughly 64k
   addresses.  In IPv6, that is equivalent to a /48, with each of 64k
   hosts receiving a /64 prefix.  Under current RIR policies, a /48 is
   easy to obtain for an enterprise network.  Networks that need a
   bigger block of private space use, which has roughly 16
   million addresses.  In IPv6, that is equivalent to a /40, with each
   host receiving /64 prefix.  Enterprises of such size can easily
   obtain a /40 under current RIR policies.

   In the above cases, aggregation and routing can be equivalent to
   IPv4: if a network aggregates per-host IPv4 addresses into prefixes
   of length /32 - n, it can aggregate per-host /64 prefixes into the
   same number of prefixes of length /64 - n.

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   Currently, residential users typically receive one IPv4 address and a
   /48, /56 or /60 IPv6 prefix.  While such networks do not provide
   enough space to assign a /64 per host, such networks almost
   universally use SLAAC, and thus do not pose any particular limit to
   the number of addresses hosts can use.

   Unlike IPv4 where addresses came at a premium, in all these networks,
   there is enough IPv6 address space to supply clients with multiple
   IPv6 addresses.

9.3.  Addressing link layer scalability issues via IP routing

   The number of IPv6 addresses on a link has direct impact for
   networking infrastructure nodes (routers, switches) and other nodes
   on the link.  Setting aside exhaustion attacks via Layer 2 address
   spoofing, every (Layer 2, IP) address pair impacts networking
   hardware requirements in terms of memory, MLD snooping, solicited
   node multicast groups, etc.  Many of these costs are incurred by
   neighboring hosts.

   Hosts on such networks that create unreasonable numbers of addresses
   risk impairing network connectivity for themselves and other hosts on
   the network, and in extreme cases (e.g., hundreds or thousands of
   addresses) may even find their network access restricted by denial-
   of-service protection mechanisms.

   We expect these scaling limitations to change over time as hardware
   and applications evolve.  However, switching to a dedicated /64
   prefix per host can resolve these scaling limitations.  If the prefix
   is provided via DHCPv6 PD, or if the prefix can be used by only one
   link-layer address (e.g., if the link layer uniquely identifies or
   authenticates hosts based on MAC addresses), then there will be only
   one routing entry and one ND cache entry per host on the network.
   Furthermore, if the host is aware that the prefix is dedicated (e.g.,
   if it was provided via DHCPv6 PD and not SLAAC), it is possible for
   the host to assign IPv6 addresses from this prefix to an internal
   interface such as a loopback interface.  This obviates the need to
   perform Neighbor Discovery and Duplicate Address Detection on the
   network interface for these addresses, reducing network traffic.

   Thus, assigning a dedicated /64 prefix per host is operationally
   prudent.  Clearly, however, it requires more IPv6 address space than
   using shared links, so the benefits provided must be weighed with the
   operational overhead of address space management.

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Tore Anderson, Brian Carpenter, David Farmer,
   Wesley George, Geoff Huston, Erik Kline, Victor Kuarsingh, Shucheng
   (Will) Liu, Dieter Siegmund, Mark Smith, Sander Steffann, Fred
   Templin and James Woodyatt for their input and contributions.

11.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

12.  Security Considerations

   As mentioned in section 9.3, on shared networks using SLAAC it is
   possible for hosts to attempt to exhaust network resources and
   possibly deny service to other hosts by creating unreasonable numbers
   (e.g., hundreds or thousands) of addresses.  Networks that provide
   access to untrusted hosts can mitigate this threat by providing a
   dedicated /64 prefix per host.  It is also possible to mitigate the
   threat by limiting the number of ND cache entries that can be created
   for a particular host, but care must be taken to ensure that the
   network does not restrict the IP addresses available to non-malicious

   Security issues related to host tracking are discussed in section

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

13.2.  Informative References

              Herbert, T., "Identifier-locator addressing for network
              virtualization", draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-01 (work in
              progress), October 2015.

              Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
              profile for DHCP clients", draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-
              profile-08 (work in progress), February 2016.

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

              Hamilton, R., Iyengar, J., Swett, I., and A. Wilk, "QUIC:
              A UDP-Based Secure and Reliable Transport for HTTP/2",
              draft-tsvwg-quic-protocol-02 (work in progress), January

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC2993]  Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2993, November 2000,

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC4389]  Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
              Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, DOI 10.17487/RFC4389, April
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4389>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

   [RFC5902]  Thaler, D., Zhang, L., and G. Lebovitz, "IAB Thoughts on
              IPv6 Network Address Translation", RFC 5902,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5902, July 2010,

   [RFC6434]  Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
              Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
              2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.

   [RFC6459]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
              T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
              Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
              RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,

   [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,

   [RFC7039]  Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and C. Vogt, Ed.,
              "Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) Framework",
              RFC 7039, DOI 10.17487/RFC7039, October 2013,

   [RFC7217]  Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
              Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
              Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,

   [RFC7278]  Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
              /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
              (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,

   [RFC7421]  Carpenter, B., Ed., Chown, T., Gont, F., Jiang, S.,
              Petrescu, A., and A. Yourtchenko, "Analysis of the 64-bit
              Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", RFC 7421,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7421, January 2015,

   [TARP]     Gleitz, PM. and SM. Bellovin, "Transient Addressing for
              Related Processes: Improved Firewalling by Using IPv6 and
              Multiple Addresses per Host", August 2001.

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  Host address availability recommendations     March 2016

Authors' Addresses

   Lorenzo Colitti
   Roppongi 6-10-1
   Minato, Tokyo  106-6126

   Email: lorenzo@google.com

   Vint Cerf
   1875 Explorer St
   10th Floor
   Reston, VA  20190

   Email: vint@google.com

   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, CA  95014

   Email: cheshire@apple.com

   David Schinazi
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, CA  95014

   Email: dschinazi@apple.com

Colitti, et al.        Expires September 10, 2016              [Page 14]