Internet Engineering Task Force E. Kline
Internet-Draft Google Japan KK
Updates: 4861 (if approved) M. Abrahamsson
Intended status: Experimental T-Systems Nordic
Expires: April 30, 2017 October 27, 2016
IPv6 Router Advertisement Prefix Information Option Exclusive Bit
draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-01
Abstract
This document defines a new control bit in the IPv6 RA PIO flags
octet that indicates that the node receiving this RA is the exclusive
receiver of all traffic destined to any address within that prefix.
Termed the eXclusive bit (or "X bit"), nodes that recognize this can
perform some optimizations to save time and traffic (e.g. disable ND
and DAD for addresses within this prefix) and more immediately pursue
the benefits of being provided multiple addresses (vis. [RFC7934]
section 3). Additionally, network infrastructure nodes (routers,
switches) can benefit by minimizing the number of {link layer, IP}
address pairs required to offer network connectivity (vis. [RFC7934]
section 9.3).
Use of the X bit is backward compatible with existing IPv6 standards
compliant implementations.
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 April 30, 2017.
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Efficiency improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. New architectural possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. PIO-X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. PIO-X RA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Link layer guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Likely sole intended recipient . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Updated Prefix Information Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Updated format description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Verify sole recipient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. (Re)Interpretation of other flags . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2.1. PIO L bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2.2. PIO A bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Transmitting PIO-X RAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Host behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. PIO-X processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Neighbor Discovery implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Router Solicitations (RSes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Link-local address behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Source address selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Next hop router selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Implications for Detecting Network Attachment . . . . . . 10
5.7. Additional guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
6. Router behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. PIO-X RA destination address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Detecting hosts to send PIO-X RAs to . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Binding table requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. Preparations before sending a PIO-X RA . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. Implementation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
This document defines a new control bit in the Internet Protocol
version 6 (IPv6) Router Advertisement (RA) Prefix Information Option
(PIO) flags octet that indicates that the node receiving this RA is
the exclusive receiver of all traffic destined to any address with
that prefix. Subject to the lifetime constraints within the PIO, the
receiving node effectively has exclusive use of the prefix, and will
be the next hop destination for the sending router, and possibly
other routers, for all traffic destined toward the prefix.
Termed the eXclusive bit (or "X bit"), nodes that recognize this can
perform some optimizations to save time and traffic (e.g. disable
Neighbor Discovery (ND) and Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for
addresses within this prefix) and more immediately pursue the
benefits of being provided multiple addresses (vis. [RFC7934]
section 3).
Additionally, network infrastructure nodes (routers, switches) can
benefit by minimizing the number of {link layer, IP} address pairs
required to offer network connectivity (vis. [RFC7934] section 9.3).
A router, for example, need not create any {link layer, IP} address
pair entries for IP address within a proffered exclusive-use prefix--
it can reliably forward all traffic to the network node to which it
advertised the prefix. This solves one potential link layer state
exhaustion problem, i.e excessive number of {link layer, IP address
pairs}, using IP layer forwarding.
Use of the X bit is backward compatible with existing IPv6 standards
compliant implementations. [RFC4861]-compliant nodes that do not
understand the X bit are not negatively impacted. They must ignore
it, and can process the PIO under existing standards, making use of
the information exactly as if the X bit were not set.
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
2. Motivation
This work is motivated by the pursuit of two categories of benefits:
some host and network side improvements in efficiency, and support
for new deployment architectures and address space use models.
2.1. Efficiency improvements
If a host knows it has exclusive use of a prefix it can perform some
optimizations to save time an traffic. It can avoid ND on the
receiving interface for addresses within these prefixes. Network
interfaces can even drop Neighbor Solicitations for these addresses
on the receiving interface to save power by not waking up more power
hungry CPUs.
Additionally, a host can save time by not performing DAD for
addresses within an exclusive-use prefix on the receiving interface.
A host that wanted, for example, to use 2**64 unique IPv6 source
addresses for DNS queries in order to improve resilience against
forged answers (as recommended in section 9.2 of <RFC5452>), could do
so without delaying each query from a newly formed address. A node
could in theory implement the same strategy using Optimistic
Duplicate Address Detection [1], but it could be very unfriendly to
the network infrastructure (in terms of {link-layer, IP address} pair
state) to do so without some explicit signal.
2.2. New architectural possibilities
There are several initiatives that propose network side practices
that provide customer isolation, enhanced operational scalability,
power efficiency, security and other benefits in IPv6 network
deployments. Some of these involve isolating a host (or RA accepting
client node) so that the host is the only node to receive a specific
prefix, including
o DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to hosts (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost>), and
o advertising a unique prefix per host via unique RAs.
(<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-
per-host>).
Some architectures further isolate the host layers below IPv6, for
improved client node security.
Regardless of the specific level of isolation, the host can best make
choices about its use of a prefix exclusively forwarded to itself if
the host can be informed of the exclusivity. (In the case of a
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation the prefix can be assumed to be of exclusive
use by the requesting node, in accordance with the model in
[RFC3633].) An implementation can, for example, safely "bind to an
IPv6 subnet" in the style of <http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2016-09/
subnetbind.html>, or start 64sharing [2] (given a prefix of a
suitable size).
This memo documents an additional bit in the IPv6 RA PIO that makes
this information explicit to receiving node.
3. Terminology
3.1. Requirements 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 [RFC2119].
3.2. Abbreviations
Throughout this document the following terminology is used purely for
the sake of brevity.
3.2.1. PIO-X
The term "PIO-X" is used to refer to a Prefix Information Option
(PIO) that has the X bit set.
3.2.2. PIO-X RA
The phrase "PIO-X RA" is used to refer to an IPv6 Router
Advertisement (RA) that contains one or more PIO-X entries (the same
RA may also contain one or more PIOs without the X bit set).
3.2.3. Host
The term "host" may be used interchangeably throughout this document
to mean a network node receiving and processing an RA. The receiving
node may itself be a router, or may temporarily become one by routing
all or a portion of an exclusive use prefix.
3.3. Concepts
Critical to correct network operations when employing PIO-X is the
concept that both the router transmitting a PIO-X RA and its intended
recipient be reasonably assured of the prefix's exclusivity. In
support of this, the router must have confidence in the host's
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
presence and reachability, and several constraints are placed on the
format of the RA for the host to validate.
3.3.1. Link layer guarantees
TODO: Add definition of things like "guaranteed point-to-point link"
and what it is meant by having certain link-layer guarantees.
3.3.2. Likely sole intended recipient
TODO: section about "likely sole recipient" which can be referenced
from other sections.
4. Updated Prefix Information Option
This document updates the Prefix Information Option specification in
RFC 4861, section 4.6.2 with the definition of a bit from the former
Reserved1 field as follows.
4.1. Updated format description
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Prefix Length |L|A|X| Rsrvd1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Valid Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preferred Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Prefix +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
Fields:
X The eXclusive use indicator flag, defined by this document.
When set, the receiving node can be assured that all traffic
destined to any address within the specified Prefix will be
forwarded to itself by, at a minimum, the router from which
the encapsulating RA was received, but possibly other routers
as well.
When not set, the receiving node MUST NOT make any
assumptions of exclusive use of the specified Prefix, i.e.
processing is unchanged from previous standards behavior.
Rsrvd1 Retains the same meaning as Reserved1 from <RFC4861> section
4.6.2.
All Retain their same meaning from <RFC4861> section 4.6.2.
other
fields
4.2. Processing
Nodes compliant with this specification perform the following
additional processing of RAs and PIO-X options when a PIO-X option is
present.
4.2.1. Verify sole recipient
A node receiving a PIO-X option MUST verify that it is the (likely)
sole intended recipient of the PIO-X RA. This done by verifying that
the RA is unicast to the node at the IPv6 layer and, if applicable,
at the link layer. On links that provide the node with a guarantee
that it is the only possible PIO-X RA recipient (e.g. PPP, 3GPP
links) this validation step SHOULD NOT be performed.
If an address other than :: (the unspecified address) was used as the
source address for one or more Router Solicitations (RS) on this
link, the node MUST verify that the IPv6 destination address of the
PIO-X RA is one of the RS source addresses in use. If the link over
which this communication takes place is known to be point-to-point,
i.e. the nature of the link ensures that the node is the only
possible recipient of an RA this check SHOULD NOT be performed.
If the node receives a PIO-X RA over a link-layer medium that
supports link-layer addresses, it MUST verify that the link-layer
destination address of the PIO-X RA is its own link-layer address.
If the node received a PIO-X RA over a point-to-point medium (such as
PPP) this step is unnecessary.
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
If any part of this "sole unicast recipient" verification fails, the
node MUST ignore the PIO-X bit and continue processing as if it were
not set (X=0).
4.2.2. (Re)Interpretation of other flags
Nodes compliant with this specification, i.e. those that understand
the X-bit, MUST, when the X-bit is set, ignore the actual values of
the L and A flags and instead interpret them as follows:
o interpret the L bit as if it were 0 (L=0)
o interpret the A bit as it it were 1 (A=1)
The rationale for this is as follows.
4.2.2.1. PIO L bit
Because a PIO-X aware node will know that it has exclusive use of a
prefix with non-zero valid lifetime, the prefix itself cannot be
considered to be on-link with respect to the link on which the PIO-X
RA was received.
Note that a given address from within the prefix may be considered
on-link according to the definition in <RFC5942> section 4, item 1,
should the receiving node chose to configure that address on said
link, but this is in no way synonymous with the entire prefix being
considered on-link.
4.2.2.2. PIO A bit
Because a PIO-X aware node will know that it has exclusive use of a
prefix with non-zero valid lifetime, autoconfiguration of addresses
according to any desired scheme, e.g. <RFC4862>, <RFC7217>, et
cetera, is implicit in the setting of the X bit.
Accordingly, the A bit can be interpreted as having been set, should
the host choose to apply standard address generation schemes that
require the bit to be set. It is free to assign any address formed
from an exclusive prefix to any available interface; it is not
required to configure the address on the link over which the PIO-X RA
was received (i.e. it is under no obligation to form addresses such
that they would be classified as on-link (according to the definition
in <RFC5942> section 4, item 1).
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
4.3. Transmitting PIO-X RAs
When a router transmits an RA containing one or more PIO-X options it
MUST unicast the PIO-X RA to its intended recipient at the IPv6 layer
and, if applicable, at the link-layer.
It is RECOMMENDED that a PIO with the X-bit set also have the PIO
flags L=0 and A=1 explicitly configured, for backward compatibility
(i.e. use by non X-bit aware nodes).
5. Host behavior
TODO: This section needs some work.
5.1. PIO-X processing
A receiving node compliant with this document processes an RA with a
PIO entry with the X flag set according the requirements in previous
standards documents (chiefly <RFC4861> section 6.3.4) subject to the
additional requirements documented in Section 4.2.
5.2. Neighbor Discovery implications
5.2.1. Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
Whatever use the host makes of the exclusive prefix during its valid
lifetime, it SHOULD NOT perform Duplicate Address Detection ("DAD",
<RFC4862> section 5.4) on any address it configures from within the
prefix if that address is configured on either the interface over
which the PIO-X RA was received or on a loopback interface. Note
that this does not absolve the host from performing DAD in all
scenarios; if, for example, the host uses the prefix for 64sharing
[3] it MUST at a minimum defend via DAD any addresses it has
configured for itself as documented in Requirement 2 of <RFC7278>
section 3.
5.2.2. Router Solicitations (RSes)
Routers announcing PIO-X RAs do so via IPv6 unicast to the intended
receiving node and may note the IPv6 unicast destination address of
an RS as the next hop for the exclusive prefix. As such, hosts
compliant with this SHOULD NOT use the unspecified address (::) when
sending RSes; they SHOULD prefer issuing Router Solicitations from a
link-local address.
It is possible for a node to receive multiple RAs with a mix of
exclusive and non-exclusive PIOs and even non-zero and zero default
router lifetimes. While it is not possible for a host (receiving
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
node) to be sure it has received all the RA information available to
it, hosts compliant with this specification SHOULD implement Packet-
Loss Resiliency for Router Solicitations [RFC7559] so that the host
continues to transmit Router Solicitations at least until an RA with
a non-zero default router lifetime has been seen.
5.3. Link-local address behavior
Routers announcing PIO-X RAs may record the source (link-local)
address of an RS as the next hop for the exclusive prefix. A node
compliant with this specification MUST continue to respond to
Neighbor Solicitations for the source address used to send RSes
(alternatively: the destination address of unicast PIO-X RAs
received). Hosts that deprecate or even remove this address may
experience a loss of connectivity.
5.4. Source address selection
No change to existing source address selection behavior is required
or specified by this document.
5.5. Next hop router selection
No change to existing next hop router selection behavior is required
or specified by this document.
5.6. Implications for Detecting Network Attachment
TODO: Describe implications for Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6
[4] (DNAv6). Probably the best that can be done is (a) no change to
RFC6059 coupled with (b) a host MAY send a test packet (e.g. ICMPv6
Echo Request) with a source and destination address from within the
PIO-X prefix to the PIO-X RA issuing router and verify the packet is
delivered back to itself. Consistent failure to receive such traffic
MAY be considered a signal that the exclusive prefix should no longer
be used by the host.
5.7. Additional guidance
The intent of networks that use PIO-X RAs is not to enable
sophisticated routing architectures that could be far better handled
by an actual routing protocol but rather to propagate a prefix's
exclusive use information to enable the receiving node to make better
use of the available addresses. As such:
A PIO-X receiving node SHOULD NOT issue ICMPv6 Redirects
([RFC4861] section 4.5) for any address within an exclusive use
prefix via the link over which the PIO-X RA was received.
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
Redirecting portions of exclusive prefixes to other "upstream" on-
link nodes is not a supported configuration.
A PIO-X receiving node SHOULD NOT transmit RAs with any subset of
its exclusive prefixes via the same interface through which the
exclusive prefix was learned.
6. Router behavior
TODO: This section needs some work.
6.1. PIO-X RA destination address
Since the host will not perform DAD for addresses within prefix
announced via PIO-X, it's very important that only a single host
receives the PIO-X RA. Therefore, the router MUST only include PIO-X
in RAs that are sent using unicast RAs to destination unicast link-
layer address and IPv6 link-local unicast address for a specific
host. For point-to-point media without link-layer addresses or where
there is guaranteed to only be single host that will receive the
PIO-X RA (e.g. as enforced by link layer mechanisms), the router MAY
send PIO-X RA with multicast destination IPv6 address. Under all
circumstances the router MUST maintain a binding table of state
information as discussed in Section 6.3.
6.2. Detecting hosts to send PIO-X RAs to
When the host starts using a network connection it normally sends out
an RS (Router Solicitation) packet. This is one way for the router
to detect that a new host is connected to the network and detects its
link-local address. If the router is configured to use PIO-X, it can
now perform necessary processing/configuration and then send the
PIO-X RA.
For some networks, the host information regarding link-layer and
link-local address might be available through other mechanism(s).
Examples of this are PPP, 802.1x and 3GPP mobile networks. In that
case this information MAY be used instead of relying on the host to
send RS. It is however RECOMMENDED that these networks also provide
indication whether the host is no longer connected to the network so
that the router can invalidate the prefix binding prior to binding
expiration (timeout).
6.3. Binding table requirements
Routers transmitting PIO-X RAs have state maintenance and operational
requirements similar to delegating routers in networks where DHCPv6
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] is used. The state maintained is
describe here in terms of a conceptual binding table.
R1 The router SHOULD keep track of which PIO-X prefix has been
issued to each node.
R2 The router SHOULD keep the binding between prefix and link-local
address for the advertised valid lifetime, plus some
operationally determined delay prior to reissuing a prefix
("grace period"), of the prefix.
R3 The router MUST monitor the reachability of each node in the
binding table via Neighbor Unreachability Detection ("NUD",
<RFC4861> section 7.3) or an equivalent link-layer mechanism.
R4 The binding SHOULD be considered refreshed every time a periodic
PIO-X RA is sent to a node.
R5 If the router is informed by some other mechanism (link-layer
indication for instance) that a node is no longer connected to
the link, it MAY immediately invalidate the prefix binding.
(DISCUSS: Is this the correct approach? Do we want to point to
some definition somewhere else?)
6.4. Preparations before sending a PIO-X RA
When the router intends to send a PIO-X RA, it SHOULD before sending
the PIO-X RA, complete any and all necessary processing for the host
to start using the PIO-X prefix to communicate through the router to
other networks. This is so that the host can start using PIO-X based
addresses without delay or error after receipt of the PIO-X RA.
6.5. Implementation considerations
TODO: Out of scope things that are worth careful consideration
include...
Routers SHOULD NOT announce the same prefix to two different nodes
within the valid lifetime of the earlier of the two PIO-X
announcements.
A link may operate in a mode where routers announce RAs to all nodes,
possibly with non-exclusive PIO data, and non-zero default router
lifetimes. Separately, one or more other nodes on the link may
announce exclusive PIO information to nodes along with zero default
router lifetimes. Except in the presence of a non-expired more
specific route, e.g. learning from an <RFC4191> Route Information
Option (RIO), the receiving node should send exclusive use prefix
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
originated or forwarded traffic destined off-link through routers
with non-zero default router lifetimes.
7. Acknowledgements
8. IANA Considerations
This memo contains no requests of IANA.
9. Security Considerations
This document fundamentally introduces no new protocol or behavior
substantively different from existing behavior on a link which
guarantees a unique /64 prefix to every attached host. It only
describes a mechanism to convey that topological reality, allowing
the host to make certain optimizations as well as share the exclusive
prefix as it sees fit with other nodes according to its capabilities
and policies.
10. References
10.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC7559] Krishnan, S., Anipko, D., and D. Thaler, "Packet-Loss
Resiliency for Router Solicitations", RFC 7559,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7559, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559>.
10.2. Informative References
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
November 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.
[RFC5452] Hubert, A. and R. van Mook, "Measures for Making DNS More
Resilient against Forged Answers", RFC 5452,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5452, January 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5452>.
[RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi,
"Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204,
RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>.
10.3. URIs
[1] RFC4429
[2] RFC7278
[3] RFC7278
[4] RFC6059
Authors' Addresses
Erik Kline
Google Japan KK
6-10-1 Roppongi
Mori Tower, 44th floor
Minato, Tokyo 106-6126
JP
Email: ek@google.com
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 RA PIO Exclusive Bit October 2016
Mikael Abrahamsson
T-Systems Nordic
Kistagangen 26
Stockholm
SE
Email: Mikael.Abrahamsson@t-systems.se
Kline & Abrahamsson Expires April 30, 2017 [Page 15]