Network Working Group S. Roy
Internet-Draft A. Durand
Expires: August 13, 2004 J. Paugh
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
February 13, 2004
Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by Default
draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document discusses problems that can occur when dual stack nodes
that have IPv6 enabled by default are deployed in IPv4 or mixed IPv4
and IPv6 environments. The problems include application connection
delays, poor connectivity, and network security. Its purpose is to
raise awareness of these problems so that they can be fixed or worked
around. The purpose of this document is not to try to specify whether
IPv6 should be enabled by default or not, but to raise awareness of
the potential issues involved.
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. No IPv6 Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Problems with Default Address Selection for IPv6 . . . . . 3
2.2 Neighbor Discovery's On-Link Assumption Considered
Harmful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Transport Protocol Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1 TCP Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1.1 TCP Connection Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1.2 Asynchronous Application Notification . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2 UDP Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.3 SCTP Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Other Problematic Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 IPv6 Network of Smaller Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1 Alleviating the Scope Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Poor IPv6 Network Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1 Dealing with Poor IPv6 Network Performance . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1 Mitigating Security Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Application Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B. Changes from draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-00 . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . 14
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
1. Introduction
This document specifically addresses operating system implementations
that implement the dual stack IPv6 model, and would ship with IPv6
enabled by default. It addresses the case where such a system is
installed and placed in an IPv4 only or mixed IPv4 and IPv6
environment, and documents potential problems that users on such
systems could experience if the IPv6 connectivity is non-existent or
sub-optimal. The purpose of this document is not to try to specify
whether IPv6 should be enabled by default or not, but to raise
awareness of the potential issues involved.
It begins in Section 2 by examining problems within IPv6
implementations that defeat the destination address selection
mechanism defined in [ADDRSEL] and contribute to poor IPv6
connectivity. Starting with Section 3 it then examines other issues
that network software engineers and network and systems
administrators should be aware of when deploying dual stack systems
with IPv6 enabled.
2. No IPv6 Router
Consider a scenario in which a dual stack system has IPv6 enabled and
placed on a link with no IPv6 routers. The system is using IPv6
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [AUTOCONF], so it only has a
link-local IPv6 address configured. It also has a single IPv4
address that happens to be a private address as defined in
[PRIVADDR].
An application on this system is trying to communicate with a
destination whose name resolves to public and global IPv4 and IPv6
addresses. The application uses an address resolution API that
implements the destination address selection mechanism described in
Default Address Selection for IPv6 [ADDRSEL]. The application will
attempt to connect to each address returned in order until one
succeeds. Since the system has no off-link IPv6 routes, the optimal
scenario would be if the IPv4 addresses returned were ordered before
the IPv6 addresses. The following sections describe where things can
go wrong with this scenario.
2.1 Problems with Default Address Selection for IPv6
The Default Address Selection for IPv6 [ADDRSEL] destination address
selection mechanism could save the application a few useless
connection attempts by placing the IPv4 addresses in front of the
IPv6 addresses. This would be desired since all IPv6 destinations in
this scenario are unreachable (there's no route to them), and the
system's only IPv6 source address is inadequate to communicate with
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
off-link destinations even if it did have an off-link route.
Let's examine how the destination address selection mechanism behaves
in the face of this scenario when given one IPv4 destination and one
IPv6 destination.
The first rule, "Avoid unusable destinations", could prefer the IPv4
destination over the IPv6 destination, but only if the IPv6
destination is determined to be unreachable. The unreachability
determination for a destination as it pertains to this rule is an
implementation detail. One implementable method is to do a simple
forwarding table lookup on the destination, and to deem the
destination as reachable if the lookup succeeds. The Neighbor
Discovery on-link assumption mentioned in Section 2.2 makes this
method somewhat irrelevant, however, as an implementation of the
assumption could simply be to insert an IPv6 default on-link route
into the system's forwarding table when the default router list is
empty. The side-effect is that the rule would always determine that
all IPv6 destinations are reachable. Therefore, this rule will not
necessarily prefer one destination over the other.
The second rule, "Prefer matching scope", could prefer the IPv4
destination over the IPv6 destination, but only if the IPv4
destination's scope matches the scope of the system's IPv4 source
address. Since [ADDRSEL] considers private addresses (as defined in
[PRIVADDR]) of site-local scope, then this rule will not prefer
either destination over the other. The link-local IPv6 source
doesn't match the global IPv6 destination, and the site-local IPv4
source doesn't match the global IPv4 destination. The tie-breaking
rule in this case is rule 6, "Prefer higher precedence". Since IPv6
destinations are of higher precedence than IPv4 destinations in the
default policy table, the IPv6 destination will be preferred.
The solution in this case could be to add a new rule after rule 2
(rule 2.5) that avoids non-link-local IPv6 destinations whose source
addresses are link-local. Of course, if the host is manually
assigned a global IPv6 source address, then rule 2 will automatically
prefer the IPv6 destination, and there is no fix other than to make
sure rule 1 considers IPv6 destinations unreachable in this scenario.
Fixing the destination address selection mechanism by adding such a
rule is only a mitigating factor if applications use standard name
resolution API's that implement this mechanism, and these
applications try addresses in the order returned. This may not be an
acceptable assumption in some cases, as there are applications that
use hard coded addresses and address search orders (DNS resolver is
one example), and/or literal addresses passed in from the user. Such
applications will obviously be subject to whatever connection delays
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
are associated with attempting a connection to an unreachable
destination. This is discussed in more detail in the next few
sections.
2.2 Neighbor Discovery's On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful
Let's assume that the application described in Section 2 is
attempting a connection to an IPv6 address first, either because the
destination address selection mechanism described in Section 2.1
returned the addresses in that order, or because the application
isn't trying the addresses in the order returned. Regardless, the
user expects that the application will quickly connect to the
destination. It is therefore important that the system quickly
determine that the IPv6 destination is unreachable so that the
application can try the IPv4 destination.
Neighbor Discovery's [ND] conceptual sending algorithm states that
when sending a packet to a destination, if a host's default router
list is empty, then the host assumes that the destination is on-link.
This issue is described in detail in [ONLINK]. In summary, this
assumption makes the unreachability detection of off-link nodes in
the absence of a default router a lengthy operation. This is due to
the cost of attempting Neighbor Discovery link-layer address
resolution for each destination, and potential transport layer costs
associated with connection timeouts. The transport layer issues are
discussed later in Section 2.3.
On a network that has no IPv6 routing and no IPv6 neighbors, making
the assumption that every IPv6 destination is on-link will be a
costly and incorrect assumption. If an application has a list of
addresses associated with a destination and the first 15 are IPv6
addresses, then the application won't be able to successfully send a
packet to the destination until the attempts to resolve each IPv6
address have failed. This could take 45 seconds
(MAX_MULTICAST_SOLICIT * RETRANS_TIMER * 15). This could be
compounded by any transport timeouts associated with each connection
attempt.
If IPv6 hosts don't assume that destinations are on-link as described
above, then communication with destinations that are not on-link and
unreachable should immediately fail. The IPv6 implementation should
be able to immediately notify applications or the transport layer
that it has no route to such IPv6 destinations, and applications
won't waste time waiting for address resolution to fail.
If hosts need to communicate with on-link destinations in the absence
of default routers, then then they need to be explicitly configured
to have on-link routes for those destinations.
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
2.3 Transport Protocol Robustness
Making the same set of assumptions as Section 2.2, regardless of how
long the network layer takes to determine that the IPv6 destination
is unreachable, the delay associated with a connection attempt to an
unreachable destination can be compounded by the transport layer.
When the unreachability of a destination is obviated by the reception
of an ICMPv6 destination unreachable message, the transport layer
should make it possible for the application to deal with this by
failing the connection attempt, passing ICMPv6 errors up to the
application, etc... Such messages would be received in the cases
mentioned in Section 2 in which a node has no default routers and NUD
fails for destinations assumed to be on-link, and when firewalls or
other systems that enforce scope boundaries send such ICMPv6 errors
as described in Section 3.1 and Section 3.3.
For cases when packets to a destination are essentially black-holed
and no ICMPv6 errors are generated, there is very little additional
remedy other than the existing timer mechanisms inside transport
layers and applications. The following transport layer implication
discussions deal with the former case, in which ICMPv6 errors are
received.
2.3.1 TCP Implications
In the case of a socket application attempting a connection via TCP,
it would be unreasonable for the application to block even after the
system has received notification that the destination address is
unreachable via an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message.
Following are some ways of solving TCP related delays associated with
destination unreachability when ICMPv6 errors are generated.
2.3.1.1 TCP Connection Termination
One solution is for TCP to abort connections in SYN-SENT or
SYN-RECEIVED state when it receives an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable
message.
It should be noted that the Requirements for Internet Hosts
[HOSTREQS] document, in section 4.2.3.9., states that TCP MUST NOT
abort connections when receiving ICMP Destination Unreachable
messages that indicate "soft errors", where soft errors are defined
as ICMP codes 0 (network unreachable), 1 (host unreachable), and 5
(source route failed), and SHOULD abort connections upon receiving
the other codes (which are considered "hard errors"). ICMPv6 didn't
exist when that document was written, but one could extrapolate the
concept of soft errors to ICMPv6 Type 1 codes 0 (no route to
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
destination) and 3 (address unreachable), and hard errors to the
other codes. Thus, it could be argued that a TCP implementation that
behaves as suggested in this section is in conflict with [HOSTREQS].
When [HOSTREQS] was written, most applications would mostly only try
one address when establishing communication with a destination. Not
aborting a connection was a sane thing to do if re-trying a single
address was a better alternative over quitting the application
altogether. With IPv6, and especially on dual stack systems,
destinations are often assigned multiple addresses (at least one IPv4
and one IPv6 address), and applications iterate through destination
addresses when attempting connections.
Since soft errors conditions are those that would entice an
application to continue iterating to another address, TCP shouldn't
make the distinction between ICMPv6 soft errors and hard errors when
in SYN-SENT or SYN-RECEIVED state. It should abort a connection in
those states when receiving any ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable
message. When in any other state, TCP would behave as described in
[HOSTREQS].
Many TCP implementations already behave this way, but others do not.
This should be noted as a best current practice in this case.
A tangential method of handling the problem in this way would be for
applications to somehow notify the TCP layer of their preference in
the matter. An application could notify TCP that it should abort a
connection upon receipt of particular ICMPv6 errors. Similarly, it
could notify TCP that it should not abort a connection. This would
allow existing TCP implementations to maintain their status quo at
the expense of increased application complexity.
2.3.1.2 Asynchronous Application Notification
In section 4.2.4.1, [HOSTREQS] states that there MUST be a mechanism
for reporting soft TCP error conditions to the application. Such a
mechanism (assuming one is implemented) could be used by applications
to cycle through destination addresses.
2.3.2 UDP Implications
As noted in [HOSTREQS] section 4.1.3.3, UDP implementations MUST pass
to the application layer all ICMP error messages that it receives
from the IP layer. As a result, proper handling destination
unreachability by UDP applications is the responsibility of the
applications themselves.
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
2.3.3 SCTP Implications
According to [SCTPIMP], SCTP ignores all ICMPv6 destination
unreachable messages. The existing SCTP specifications do not
suggest any action on the part of the implementation on reception of
such messages. Investigation needs to be done to determine the
implications.
3. Other Problematic Scenarios
This section describes problems that could arise for a dual stack
system with IPv6 enabled when placed on a network with IPv6
connectivity.
3.1 IPv6 Network of Smaller Scope
A network that has a smaller scope of connectivity for IPv6 as it
does for IPv4 could be a problem in some cases. If applications have
access to name to address mapping information that is of greater
scope than the connectivity to those addresses, there is obvious
potential for suboptimal network performance. Hosts will attempt to
communicate with IPv6 destinations that are outside the scope of the
IPv6 routing, and depending on how the scope boundaries are enforced,
applications may not be notified that packets are being dropped at
the scope boundary.
If applications aren't immediately notified of the lack of
reachability to IPv6 destinations, then they aren't able to
efficiently fall back to IPv4. They then have to rely on transport
layer timeouts which can be minutes in the case of TCP.
An example of such a network is an enterprise network that has both
IPv4 and IPv6 routing within the enterprise and has a firewall
configured to allow some IPv4 communication, but no IPv6
communication.
3.1.1 Alleviating the Scope Problem
To allow applications to correctly fall back to IPv4 when IPv6
packets are destined beyond their allowed scope, the devices
enforcing the scope boundary must send ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable
messages back to senders of such packets. The sender's transport
layer should act on these errors as described in Section 2.3.
3.2 Poor IPv6 Network Performance
Most applications on dual stack nodes will try IPv6 destinations
first by default due to the Default Address Selection mechanism
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
described in [ADDRSEL]. If the IPv6 connectivity to those
destinations is poor while the IPv4 connectivity is better (i.e., the
IPv6 traffic experiences higher latency, lower throughput, or more
lost packets than IPv4 traffic), applications will still communicate
over IPv6 at the expense of network performance. There is no
information available to applications in this case to advise them to
try another destination address.
An example of such a situation is a node which obtains IPv4
connectivity natively through an ISP, but whose IPv6 connectivity is
obtained through a configured tunnel whose other endpoint is
topologically such that most IPv6 communication is done through
triangular IPv4 paths. Operational experience on the 6bone shows
that IPv6 RTT's are poor in such situations.
3.2.1 Dealing with Poor IPv6 Network Performance
There are few options from the end node's perspective. One is to
configure each node to prefer IPv4 destinations over IPv6. If hosts
implement the Default Address Selection for IPv6 [ADDRSEL] policy
table, IPv4 mapped addresses could be assigned higher precedence,
resulting in applications trying IPv4 for communication first. This
has the negative side-effect that these nodes will almost never use
IPv6 unless the only address published in the DNS for a given name is
IPv6, presumably because of this phenomenon.
Disabling IPv6 on the end nodes is another solution. The idea would
be that enabling IPv6 on dual stack nodes is a manual process that
would be done when the administrator knows that IPv6 connectivity is
adequate.
3.3 Security
Enabling IPv6 on a host implies that the services on the host may be
open to IPv6 communication. If the service itself is insecure and
depends on security policy enforced somewhere else on the network
(such as in a firewall), then there is potential for new attacks
against the service.
A firewall, for example, may not be enforcing the same policy for
IPv4 as for IPv6 traffic. One possibility is that the firewall could
have more relaxed policy for IPv6, perhaps by letting all IPv6
packets pass through, or by letting all IPv4 protocol 41 packets pass
through. In this scenario, the dual stack hosts within the protected
network could be subject to different attacks than for IPv4.
Even if a firewall has a stricter policy or identical policy for IPv6
traffic than for IPv4 (the extreme case being that it drops all IPv6
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
traffic), IPv6 packets could go through the network untouched if
tunneled over a transport layer. This could open the host to direct
IPv6 attacks.
A similar problem could exist for VPN software. A VPN could protect
all IPv4 packets but transmit all others onto the local subnet
unprotected. At least one widely used VPN behaves this way. This is
problematic on a dual stack host that has IPv6 enabled on its local
network. It establishes its VPN link and attempts to communicate
with destinations that resolve to both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The
destination address selection mechanism prefers the IPv6 destination
so the application sends packets to an IPv6 address. The VPN doesn't
know about IPv6, so instead of protecting the packets and sending
them to the remote end of the VPN, it passes such packets in the
clear to the local network. The reason that packets meant to be
protected would be sent in the clear on the local network is either
because of the on-link assumption discussed in Section 2.2, or of
malicious hijacking of traffic by a rogue "fake" router advertising a
prefix.
3.3.1 Mitigating Security Risks
The security policy implemented in firewalls, VPN software, or other
devices, must take a stance whether it applies equally to both IPv4
and IPv6 traffic. It is probably desirable for policy to apply
equally to both IPv4 and IPv6, but the most important thing is to be
aware of the potential problem, and to make the policy clear to the
administrator and user.
There is still a risk that IPv6 packets could be tunneled over a
transport layer such as UDP, implicitly bypassing security policy.
Some more complex mechanism could be implemented to apply the correct
policy to such packets. This could be easy to do if tunnel endpoints
are co-located with a firewall, but more difficult if internal nodes
do their own IPv6 tunneling.
4. Application Robustness
Enabling IPv6 on a dual stack node is only useful if applications
that support IPv6 on that node properly cycle through addresses
returned from name lookups and fall back to IPv4 when IPv6
communication fails. Simply cycling through the list of addresses
returned from a name lookup when attempting connections works in most
cases for most applications, but there are still cases where that's
not enough. Applications also need to be aware that the fact that a
dual stack destination's IPv6 address is published in the DNS does
not necessarily imply that all services on that destination function
over IPv6. This problem, along with a thorough discussion of IPv6
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
application transition guidelines, is discussed in [APPTRANS].
5. Security Considerations
This document raises security concerns in Section 3.3.
Normative References
[ADDRSEL] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[APPTRANS]
Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P. and M. Castro,
"Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition", October 2003.
draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-00
[ND] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December
1998.
[ONLINK] Roy, S., Durand, A. and J. Paugh, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful", October 2003.
draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-00
Informative References
[AUTOCONF]
Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[HOSTREQS]
Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[PRIVADDR]
Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[SCTPIMP] Stewart, R., Arias-Rodriguez, I., Poon, K., Caro, A. and
M. Tuexen, "", November 2003.
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-10
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
Authors' Addresses
Sebastien Roy
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
1 Network Drive
UBUR02-212
Burlington, MA 01801
EMail: sebastien.roy@sun.com
Alain Durand
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle
UMPK17-202
Menlo Park, CA 94025
EMail: alain.durand@sun.com
James Paugh
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle
UMPK17-202
Menlo Park, CA 94025
EMail: james.paugh@sun.com
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Jim Bound,
Tim Hartrick, Mika Liljeberg, Erik Nordmark, Pekka Savola, and Ronald
van der Pol.
Appendix B. Changes from draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-00
o Clarified in the abstract and introduction that the document is
meant to raise awareness, and not to specify whether IPv6 should
be enabled by default or not.
o Shortened section Section 2.2 and made reference to [ONLINK].
o Added clarification in section Section 2.3 about packets that are
lost without ICMPv6 notification.
o Section Section 2.3 now has subsections for TCP, UDP, and SCTP.
o Removed text in Section 2.3.1.1 suggesting that hosts usually were
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
only assigned one address when [HOSTREQS] was written.
o Added text in Section 2.3.1.1 suggesting a method for applications
to advise TCP of their preference for ICMPv6 handling.
o Added section Section 2.3.1.2.
o Added section Section 2.3.2.
o Added section Section 2.3.3.
o Strengthened wording in section Section 3.1.1 to suggest that
devices enforcing scope boundaries must send ICMPv6 Destination
Unreachable messages.
o Clarified that the VPN problem described in Section 3.3 is due to
a combination of the VPN software and either the on-link
assumption and/or a "bad guy".
o Shortened section Section 4 and made reference to [APPTRANS].
o Miscellaneous editorial changes.
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain 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.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Issues with Dual Stack IPv6 on by DefaultFebruary 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Roy, et al. Expires August 13, 2004 [Page 15]
