Internet Draft                                           RJ Atkinson
draft-rja-ilnp-intro-11.txt                               Consultant
Expires:  27 JAN 2012                                   27 July 2011
Category: Experimental

                       ILNP Concept of Operations

Status of this Memo

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   ( 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.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before
   before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright
   in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the
   right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF
   Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process,
   and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF
   Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an
   RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.

   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

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 1]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This document is not on the IETF standards-track and does not
   specify any level of standard.  This document merely provides
   information for the Internet community.

   This document has had extensive review within the IRTF Routing
   Research Group, and is part of the ILNP document set.  ILNP is
   one of the recommendations made by the RG Chairs.  Separately,
   various refereed research papers on ILNP have also been published
   during this decade.  So the ideas contained herein have had much
   broader review than the IRTF Routing RG.  The views in this
   document were considered controversial by the Routing RG,
   but the RG reached a consensus that the document still should be
   published.  The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus
   on anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered


   This document describes the Concept of Operations for the
   Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP), which is an
   experimental extension to IP.  This is a product of the
   IRTF Routing RG.

Table of Contents

      1. Introduction ...............................................2
      2. Locators & Identifiers......................................4
      3. Transport Protocols.........................................8
      4. Mobility....................................................9
      5. Multi-Homing...............................................12
      6. Localised Addressing.......................................13
      7. IP Security Enhancements...................................14
      8. DNS Enhancements...........................................15
      9. Referrals & Application Programming Interfaces.............17
     10. Backwards Compatibility....................................18
     11. Incremental Deployment.....................................19
     12. Implementation Considerations..............................20
     13. Security Considerations ...................................21

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 2]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

     14. Privacy Considerations.....................................26
     15. IANA Considerations .......................................28
     16. References ................................................28


   At present, the Internet research and development community are
   exploring various approaches to evolving the Internet
   Architecture to solve a variety of issues including, but not
   limited to, scalability inter-domain routing.  A wide range of
   other issues (e.g. site multi-homing, node multi-homing,
   site/subnet mobility, node mobility) are also active concerns at
   present.  Several different classes of evolution are being
   considered by the Internet research & development community.  One
   class is often called "Map and Encapsulate", where traffic would
   be mapped and then tunnelled through the inter-domain core of the
   Internet.  Another class being considered is sometimes known as
   "Identifier/Locator Split".  This document relates to a proposal
   that is in the latter class of evolutionary approaches.

   There has been substantial research relating to naming in the
   Internet through the years. [IEN 1] [IEN 19] [IEN 23] [IEN 31]
   [RFC 814] [RFC 1498] More recently, mindful of that important
   prior work, and starting well before the Routing RG was
   re-chartered to focus on inter-domain routing scalability, the
   author has been examining enhancements to certain naming aspects
   of the Internet Architecture. [MobiArch07] [MobiWAC07]
   [MobiArch08] [MILCOM08] [MILCOM09] [TeleSys]

   The architectural concept behind ILNP derives originally from a
   June 1994 note by Bob Smart to the IETF SIPP WG mailing list.
   [SIPP94] In January 1995, Dave Clark sent a note to the IETF IPng
   WG mailing list suggesting that the IPv6 address be split into
   separate Identifier and Locator fields. [IPng95]

   Afterwards, Mike O'Dell pursued this concept in Internet-Drafts
   describing "8+8" or "GSE".[8+8] [GSE] More recently, the IRTF
   Namespace Research Group (NSRG) studied this matter.  Unusually
   for an IRTF RG, the NSRG operated on the principle that unanimity
   was required for the NSRG to make a recommendation.  The author
   was a member of the IRTF NSRG.  At least one other proposal, the
   Host Identity Protocol (HIP), also derives in part from the IRTF
   NSRG studies (and related antecedent work).  This current
   proposal differs from O'Dell's work in various ways.

   The crux of this proposal is to have different names for the
   identity of a node and the location of its subnet, with crisp
   semantics for each.  This enhances the Internet Architecture

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 3]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   by adding crisp and clear semantics for the Identifier and
   for the Locator, removing the semantically-muddled concept
   of the IP address, and updating end system protocols slightly,
   without requiring router changes.

   With these naming enhancements, we have improved the Internet
   Architecture by adding explicit support not only for
   multi-homing, but also for mobility, localised addressing
   (e.g. NAT/NAPT), and IP Security.

   ILNP is an architecture, and can have more than one engineering
   instantiation.  The term ILNPv4 refers precisely to an instance
   of ILNP that is based upon and backwards compatible with IPv4.
   The term ILNPv6 refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is
   based upon and backwards compatible with IPv6.  The following
   two subsections provide brief overview of ILNPv6 and ILNPv4,
   respectively. A full specification for either ILNPv4 or ILNPv6
   is beyond the scope of this document.

   Readers are referred to other related ILNP documents for details
   not described here. [ILNP-DNS] describes additional DNS resource
   records that support the Identifier/Locator split mode of
   operation.  [ILNP-ICMP] describes a new ICMPv6 Locator Update
   message used by an ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes
   or any changes to its set of valid Locators.  [ILNP-Nonce]
   describes a new IPv6 Nonce Destination Option used by ILNP
   nodes (1) to indicate to ILNP correspondent nodes (by inclusion
   within the initial packets of an ILNP session) that the node
   is operating in the Identifier/Locator split mode and
   (2) to authenticate ICMP messages, for example the ICMPv6
   Locator Update message, that are exchanged with ILNP
   correspondent nodes.

   ILNP improves routing scalability by helping multi-homed sites
   operate effectively with provider-aggregatable addresses.
   Many multi-homed sites today request provider-independent
   addresses so they can provide session survivability despite
   the failure of one or more access links or ISPs.  ILNP
   provides this session scalability by allowing correspondents
   to change arbitrarily among multiple provider-aggregatable
   Locator values without disrupting the transport session.
   In turn, this allows the multi-homed site to have the full
   session resilience offered by provider-independent addressing
   while using provider-aggregatable addressing, and to eliminate
   the current need to use globally visible provider-independent
   routing prefixes for each multi-homed site.

1.1 Overview

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 4]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   ILNP places an explicit Locator and Identifier in the IP packet
   header, replacing the usual IP address.  Locators are tied to the
   topology of the network.  They may change frequently, as the host
   or site changes its network connectivity.  The node Identifier is
   normally much more static, and remains constant throughout the
   life of a given Transport-layer session, and frequently much

   Identifiers and Locators for hosts are advertised explicitly in
   DNS, through the use of new Resource Records. This is a logical
   and reasonable use of DNS, completely analogous to the
   functionality that DNS provides today.  At present, among other
   current uses, the DNS is used to map from a FQDN to a set of
   addresses.  As ILNP replaces addresses with Identifiers and
   Locators, it is then clearly rational to use the DNS to map an
   FQDN to a set of Identifiers and a set of Locators for the host.

   The presence of ILNP Locators and Identifiers in the DNS for a
   DNS owner name is an indicator to correspondents that the
   correspondents can try to establish an ILNP enhanced transport
   session with that DNS owner name.  The use of ILNP for a specific
   session is indicated by the inclusion of an ILNP Nonce as an
   IPv4/IPv6 option when the connection is initated.  Once both
   parties have sent an ILNP Nonce, then ILNP can be freely used for
   that connection.

   When a node changes Locator(s), it can send an ICMP message to
   its current correspondents and also undertake a Secure DNS
   Dynamic Update [RFC-3007] transaction with its DNS server.  The
   ICMP message is always protected through the use of the Nonce
   within the ICMP message and also may optionally be protected by
   use of the IP Authentication Header.  Nonce values are
   unidirectional.  The Nonce for a given session must, for the
   lifetime of that session, correspond with the Nonce initially
   sent at the start of that session.

1.2 Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
   in RFC 2119. [RFC 2119]


   ILNP deprecates the semantically muddled concept of an "IP
   Address" and replaces it with 2 new concepts, the "Locator"

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 5]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   and the "Identifier".

   The Locator is used only to name the subnetwork a node is
   connected to, while the Identifier is used only for node
   identity.  So the routing system uses Locators, while
   upper-layer protocols (e.g. TCP/UDP pseudo-header checksum,
   IPsec Security Association) use only the Identifier.

   The same Identifier definition is used for both ILNPv4 and
   ILNPv6.  This is described in the next sub-section.  Following
   that is a description of ILNPv6, including a description of
   the 64-bit Locator value used with ILNPv6.  Then, there is a
   description of ILNPv4, including a description of the 32-bit
   Locator value used with ILNPv4.

2.1 Identifiers

   With ILNP, the Identifier is an unsigned 64-bit number.

   This provides a fixed-length non-topological name for a node.
   Identifiers are bound to nodes, not to interfaces of a node.
   All ILNP Identifiers MUST comply with the modified EUI-64 syntax
   already specified for IPv6's "Interface Identifier" values.
   [RFC 2460][RFC 4219][IEEE-EUI]

   Identifiers have either global-scope or local-scope.
   A reserved bit in the modified EUI-64 syntax clearly
   indicates whether a given Identifier has global-scope or
   local-scope.[RFC 4219][IEEE-EUI]  A node is not required
   to use a global-scope Identifier, although that is the
   recommended practice.

   Most commonly, Identifiers have global-scope and are derived
   from one or more IEEE 802 or IEEE 1394 'MAC Addresses' (sic)
   already associated with the node, following the procedure
   already defined for IPv6.[RFC 4219]  Global-scope identifiers
   have a high probability of being globally unique.  This approach
   eliminates the need to manage Identifiers, among other benefits.

   Local-scope Identifiers MUST be unique within the context of
   their Locators.  The existing mechanisms of the IPv4 Address
   Resolution Protocol [RFC 826] and IPv6 Neighbour Discovery
   Protocol [RFC 4861] automatically enforce this constraint.

   For example, on an Ethernet-based IPv4 subnetwork the ARP Reply
   message is sent via link-layer broadcast, thereby advertising
   the current binding between an IPv4 address and a MAC address
   to all nodes on that IPv4 subnetwork.  (Note also that a

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 6]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   well-known, long standing, issue with ARP is that it cannot be
   authenticated.)  Local-scope Identifiers MUST NOT be used with
   other Locators without first ensuring uniqueness in the context
   of those other Locators (e.g. by using IPv6 Neighbour
   Discovery's Duplicate Address Detection mechanism when using
   ILNPv6 or by sending an ARP Request when using ILNPv4).

   Other methods might be used to generate local-scope Identifiers.
   For example, one might derive Identifiers using some form of
   cryptographic generation or using the methods specified in the
   IPv6 Privacy Extensions to State-Less Address Auto-Configuration
   (SLAAC). [RFC 3972, RFC 4941] When cryptographic generation of
   Identifiers using methods described in RFC-3972 is in use, only
   the Identifier is included, never the Locator, thereby preserving
   roaming capability. [RFC 3972] One could also imagine creating
   a local-scope Identifier by taking a cryptographic hash of a
   node's public key.  Of course, in the very unlikely event of a
   Identifier collision, for example when a node has chosen to use
   a local-scope Identifier value, the node remains free to use
   some other local-scope Identifier value(s).

2.2  ILNPv6

   It is worth remembering here that an IPv6 address names a
   specific network interface on a specific node, but an ILNP
   Identifier names the node itself, not a specific interface
   on the node.  This difference in definition is essential
   to providing seamless support for mobility and multi-homing,
   which are discussed in more detail later in this note.

                            1        1                2               3
    0       4      8        2        6                4               1
   | Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                    |
   |          Payload Length         |   Next Header  |  Hop Limit    |
   |                          Source Address                          |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |
   |                        Destination  Address                      |
   +                                                                  +

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 7]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   |                                                                  |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |

           Figure 1:  Existing ("Classic") IPv6 Header

   The high-order 64-bits of the IPv6 address become the Locator.
   The Locator indicates the subnetwork point of attachment for a
   node.  In essence, the Locator names a subnetwork.  Locators are
   also known as Routing Prefixes.  Of course, backwards
   compatibility requirements mean that ILNPv6 Locators use the same
   number space as IPv6 routing prefixes.  This ensures that no
   changes are needed to deployed IPv6 routers when deploying

   The low-order 64-bits of the IPv6 address become the Identifier.
   Details of the Identifier were discussed just above.

                            1        1                2               3
    0       4      8        2        6                4               1
   | Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                    |
   |          Payload Length         |   Next Header  |   Hop Limit   |
   |                          Source Locator                          |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |
   |                         Source Identifier                        |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |
   |                        Destination  Locator                      |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |
   |                        Destination Identifier                    |
   +                                                                  +
   |                                                                  |

              Figure 2:  ILNPv6 Header

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 8]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

2.3 ILNPv4

   ILNPv4 is merely a different instantiation of the ILNP
   Architecture, so it retains the crisp distinction between the
   Locator and the Identifier.  Also, as with ILNPv6, when ILNPv4
   is used for a network-layer session, the upper-layer protocols
   (e.g. TCP/UDP pseudo-header checksum, IPsec Security
   Association) bind only to the Identifiers, never to the Locators.
   As with ILNPv6, only the Locator values are used for routing
   ILNPv4 packets.

   Just as ILNPv6 is carefully engineered to be backwards-
   compatible with IPv6, ILNPv4 is carefully engineered
   to be backwards-compatible with IPv4.

   The Source IP Address in the IPv4 header becomes the Source
   ILNPv4 Locator value, while the Destination IP Address of the
   IPv4 header becomes the Destination ILNPv4 Locator value.  Of
   course, backwards compatibility requirements mean that ILNPv4
   Locators use the same number space as IPv4 routing prefixes.

   ILNPv4 uses the same 64-bit Identifier, with the same modified
   EUI-64 syntax, as ILNPv6.  Because the IPv4 address is much
   smaller than the IPv6 address, ILNPv4 cannot carry the
   Identifier values in the fixed portion of the IPv4 header.
   The obvious two ways to carry the ILNP Identifier with ILNPv4
   are either as an IPv4 Option or as an IPv6-style Extension
   Header placed after the IPv4 header and before the upper-layer
   protocol (e.g. OSPF, TCP, UDP, SCTP).

   At least some currently available IPv4 forwarding silicon is able
   to parse past IPv4 options to examine the upper-layer protocol
   header at wire-speed on reasonably fast (e.g. 1 Gbps or better)
   network interfaces.  By contrast, no existing silicon is able to
   parse past a new Extension Header at all.  So, for engineering
   reasons, ILNPv4 uses a new IPv4 Option to carry the Identifier
   values.  The new IPv4 option also carries a nonce value,
   performing the same function for ILNPv4 as the IPv6 Nonce
   Destination Option [ILNP-Nonce] performs for ILNPv6.

    |Version|IHL=12 |Type of Service|          Total Length         |
    |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
    |  Time to Live |    Protocol   |         Header Checksum       |

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                          [Page 9]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

    |                       Source Locator                          |
    |                    Destination Locator                        |
    | OT=ILNPv4_ID  |     OL=5      |      Padding=0x0000           |
    |                                                               |
    +                      Source Identifier                        +
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    +                    Destination Identifier                     +
    |                                                               |
    |OT=ILNPv4_NONCE|     OL=2      |      top 16 bits of nonce     |
    |                     lower 32 bits of nonce                    |

             Figure 3:  ILNPv4 header with ILNP ID option
                     and ILNP Nonce option.

        Notation for Figure 3:
             IHL:  Internet Header Length
             OT:   Option Type
             OL:   Option Length

   The remainder of this note focuses on ILNP for IPv6, in the
   interest of both clarity and brevity, however the same
   architectural concepts and principles also apply to ILNP
   for IPv4, albeit with slightly different engineering.


   At present, commonly deployed transport protocols include a
   pseudo-header checksum that includes certain network-layer
   fields, the IP addresses used for the session, in that checksum
   calculation.[RFC 768][RFC 793] This inclusion of network-layer
   information within the transport-layer session state creates
   issues for multi-homing, mobility, IP Security, and localised
   addressing (e.g. using Network Address Translation).  [RFC
   1631][RFC 3022]

   This unfortunate aspect of the TCP pseudo-header checksum
   has been understood to be an architectural problem at least
   since 1977, well before the transition from NCP to

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 10]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   IPv4.[IEN 1][IEN 19][IEN 23][IEN 31][RFC 1498]

   With this proposal, transport protocols include only the
   Identifier in their pseudo-header calculations, but do not
   include the Locator in their pseudo-header calculations.

   To minimise the changes required within transport protocol
   implementations, when this proposal is in use for a
   communications session, the Locator fields are zeroed for
   the purpose of transport-layer pseudo-header calculations.

   Later in this document, methods for incremental deployment
   of this change and backwards compatibility with non-upgraded
   nodes are described.


   First, please recall that mobility and multi-homing actually
   present the same set of issues.  In each case, the set of
   Locators associated with a node or site changes.  The reason
   for the change might be different, but the effects on the
   network and on correspondents is identical.

   There are no standardised mechanisms to update most transport
   protocols with new IP addresses in use for the session.
   Exceptionally, the Stream Control Transport Protocol (SCTP)
   recently added this capability.[RFC 5061] In July 2008, Mark
   Handley at UCL proposed adding such a capability to TCP during
   a presentation at the IRTF Routing RG in Dublin, Ireland.
   His Multi-Path TCP concept is being considered in the IETF
   as of this writing.

   This creates various issues for mobility.  For example, there
   is no method at present to update the IP addresses associated
   with a transport layer session when one of the nodes in that
   session moves (i.e. changes one of its points of network

   So, the several approaches to IP mobility seek to hide the
   change in location (and corresponding change in IP addresses)
   via tunnelling, home agents, foreign agents, and so forth.
   [RFC 3775] All of this can add substantial complexity to IP
   mobility approaches, both in the initial deployment and also
   in ongoing operation.

   By contrast, this ILNP proposal hides each node's location
   information from the transport layer protocols at all times,
   by removing location information from the transport session

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 11]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   state (e.g. pseudo-header checksum calculations).

   In this proposal, mobility and multi-homing are supported
   using a common set of mechanisms.  In both cases, different
   Locator values are used to identify different IP subnetworks.
   Also, ILNP nodes are assumed to have a Fully Qualified
   Domain Name (FQDN) stored in the Domain Name System (DNS),
   as is already done within the deployed Internet.

   To handle the move of a node, we add a new ICMP control message.
   The ICMP Locator Update message is used by a node to inform its
   existing correspondents that the set of valid Locators for the
   node has changed.  This mechanism can be used to add newly valid
   Locators, to remove no longer valid Locators, or to do both at
   the same time.  Further, the node uses Secure Dynamic DNS Update
   [RFC 3007] to correct the set of Locator (i.e. L32, L64) records
   in the DNS for that node.[ILNP-DNS] This enables any new
   correspondents to correctly initiate a new session with the
   node at its new location.

   This use of DNS for initial rendezvous with mobile node was
   earlier proposed by others [PHG02] and then separately
   re-invented by the current author later on.

   (The Locator Update control message could be an entirely new
   protocol running over UDP, for example, but there is no obvious
   advantage to creating a new protocol rather than using a new
   ICMP message.)

   With ILNP, network mobility (as well as node mobility)
   is considered a special case of multihoming.  That is,
   when a network moves, it uses a new Locator value for all
   of its communications sessions.  So, the same mechanism,
   using a new or additional Locator value, also supports
   network mobility.  Similarly, when a multi-homed site
   or multi-homed node changes its set of upstream links,
   the Locators associated with that site or node change.

   So in ILNP, when a connectivity change affects the set of
   valid Locators, the affected node(s) actively:

   (1) use the ICMP Locator Update message to inform their
       existing correspondents with the updated information
       about their currently valid Locator(s). [ILNP-ICMP]

   AND also

   (2) update their DNS entries, most commonly by using

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 12]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

       the Secure Dynamic DNS Update mechanism. [RFC 3007]

   In the unlikely event of simultaneous motion which changes
   both nodes' Locators within a very small time period, a
   node can use the DNS to discover the new Locator value(s)
   for the other node.

   As a DNS performance optimisation, the "LP" DNS resource record
   MAY be used to avoid requiring each node on a subnetwork to
   update its DNS L64 record entries when that subnetwork's location
   (e.g. upstream connectivity) changes.  In this case, the nodes on
   the subnetwork each would have an "LP" record pointing to a
   common domain-name used to name that subnetwork.  In turn, that
   subnetwork's domain name would have one or more L64 record(s) in
   the DNS.  Since the contents of an "LP" record are stable,
   relatively long DNS TTL values can be associated with these
   records facilitating DNS caching.  By contrast, the DNS TTL
   of an L32 or L64 record for a mobile or multi-homed node
   should be small.  Experimental work at the University of
   St Andrews indicates that the DNS continues to work well
   even with very low DNS TTL values. [Bhatti10]

   Correspondents of a node on that subnetwork would perform a "L64"
   record query for that target node (or an "ID" query for that
   target node) and receive the "LP" records as additional data in
   the DNS reply.  Then the correspondent would perform an L64
   record lookup on the domain-name pointed to by that LP record,
   in order to learn the Locator value to use to reach that
   target node.

   For bi-directional flows, such as a TCP session, each node knows
   whether the current path in use is working by the reception of
   data packets, acknowledgements, or both.  As with TCP/IP,
   TCP/ILNP does not need special path probes.  UDP/ILNP sessions
   with acknowledgements work similarly, and also don't need special
   path probes.

   In the deployed Internet, the sending node for a UDP/IP session
   without acknowledgements does not know for certain that all
   packets are received by the intended receiving node.  Such
   UDP/ILNP sessions fare no worse than UDP/IP sessions.  The
   receiver(s) of such a UDP session SHOULD send a gratuitous
   IP packet containing an ILNP Nonce option to the sender,
   in order to enable the receiver to subsequently send ICMP
   Locator Updates if appropriate. [ILNP-Nonce] In this case,
   UDP/ILNP sessions fare better than UDP/IP sessions,
   still without using network path probes.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 13]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   One might wonder what happens if a mobile node is moving more
   quickly than DNS can be updated.  This situation is unlikely,
   particularly given the widespread use of link-layer mobility
   mechanisms (e.g. GSM, IEEE 802 bridging) in combination with
   network-layer mobility.  However, the situation is functionally
   equivalent to the situation where a traditional IP node is moving
   faster than the Mobile IPv4 or Mobile IPv6 agents/servers can be
   updated with the mobile node's new location.  So the issue is not
   new in any way.  In all cases, Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 and
   ILNP, a node moving that quickly might be temporarily unreachable
   until it remains at a given network-layer location (e.g. IP
   subnetwork) long enough for the location update mechanisms
   (for Mobile IPv4, for Mobile IPv6, or ILNP) to catch up.

   ILNP is prospectively better than either form of Mobile IP
   with respect to key management, given that ILNP is using
   Secure Dynamic DNS Update -- which capability is much more
   widely available today in deployed desktop and server
   environments (e.g. Microsoft Windows, MacOS X, Linux, other
   UNIX), [Liu-DNS] as well as being widely available today in
   deployed DNS server software (e.g. Microsoft and the freely
   available BIND) and appliances [Liu-DNS], than the Security
   enhancements needed for either Mobile IPv4 or Mobile IPv6


   Conceptually, there are two kinds of multi-homing.  Site
   multi-homing is when all nodes at a site are multi-homed at the
   same time.  This is what most people mean when they talk about
   multi-homing.  However, there is also a separate concept of node
   multi-homing, where only a single node is multi-homed.  Kindly
   recall, that multiple transport-layer sessions might currently
   share a single current network-layer (e.g. IP or ILNP) session.

5.2 Node Multi-Homing

   At present, node multi-homing is not common in the deployed
   Internet.  When TCP or UDP are in use for an IP session, node
   multi-homing cannot provide session resilience, because the
   transport pseudo-header checksum binds the session to a single
   address of the multi-homed node, and hence to a single interface.
   SCTP has a protocol-specific mechanism to support node
   multi-homing; SCTP can support session resilience both at present
   and also without change in the proposed approach.  [RFC 5061]

   In the new scheme, when a node is multi-homed, then the node
   typically has more than one valid Locator value.  When one
   upstream connection fails, the node sends an ICMP Locator Update

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 14]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   message to each existing correspondent node to remove the
   no-longer-valid Locator from the set of valid Locators.
   [ILNP-ICMP] Also, the node can use Secure Dynamic DNS Update
   to alter the set of currently valid L64 records associated with
   that node.  [RFC 3007] This second step ensures that any new
   correspondents can reach the node.

5.2 Site Multi-Homing

   At present, site multi-homing is common in the deployed Internet.
   This is primarily achieved by advertising the site's routing
   prefix(es) to more than one upstream Internet service provider
   at a given time.  In turn, this requires de-aggregation of
   routing prefixes within the inter-domain routing system.
   In turn, this increases the entropy of the inter-domain
   routing system (e.g.  RIB/FIB size increases beyond the
   minimal RIB/FIB size that would be required to reach all sites).

   In the new scheme, site multi-homing is similar to node
   multi-homing, but with nodes within the site having one Locator
   for each upstream connection to the Internet.  To avoid a DNS
   Update burst when a site or (sub)network moves location, a DNS
   record optimisation is possible.  This would change the number of
   DNS Updates required from Order(number of nodes at the
   site/subnetwork that moved) to Order(1). [ILNP-DNS]

   Additionally, since the transport-protocol session state no
   longer includes the Locators, a site could choose to perform
   Locator rewriting at its site border routers, possibly in
   combination with applying site traffic engineering policy on
   which upstream link to use for which packets.  Since the site
   border router(s) are in the middle of any exterior packet flow,
   they also can send proxy Locator Update messages on behalf of
   nodes inside that site, and can even include the appropriate
   Nonce value in such proxy Locator Updates, if desired by that
   site's administration.

5.3 Multi-Path Support

   Because ILNP decouples the transport-layer information from
   the Locator values being used for a given session (e.g. TCP
   pseudo-header checksum includes Identifier values, but not
   Locator values, when ILNP is in use), ILNP can enable
   multi-path transport-layer sessions without requiring any
   changes to existing transport-layer protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP).
   Note that this approach also does not interfere with SCTP's
   existing support for multi-path transport nor with the
   proposed TCP multi-path extensions.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 15]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   With ILNP, any transport-layer session can use multiple paths
   concurrently, simply by using multiple (valid) Locator values
   in that session's ILNP packets.  Obviously for any given ILNP
   packet a single Source Locator and a single Destination Locator
   is in use.

   As an example, if one considers TCP with an originator using
   Locators (A, B, C) and a responder using Locators (W, X, Y), then
   the originator can choose which Source Locators to use and also
   which Destination Locators on a packet-by-packet basis.  So
   different TCP segments (or TCP ACKs, or other TCP information)
   within a single TCP session can use different Locator pairs.

   Again, purely as an example, the originator could send packets
   using these Locator values in this simple sequence: (A, W) (B, X)
   (C, Y) or any other sequence that it wishes to.  The choice of
   Locator value to use for a given packet is made by the sending
   node, selected from the current set of valid Locator values for
   the receiving node.  Similarly, the responder can use any valid
   combination of Locators that it wishes to use.

   The ILNP-related DNS resource records specified in [ILNP-DNS]
   contain relative preference values.  The simplest approach to
   Locator selection probably is to use the most preferred
   Locator value advertised by the receiving node as the
   Destination Locator, and the local node's own most preferred
   Locator value as the Source Locator.  However, an ILNP node
   MAY also consider local policy and other locally-available
   information in deciding which Locator value(s) to use for
   a given ILNP packet being sent by that node.

   In any case, the TCP implementations at either end are
   unaware that multiple Locators are being used (i.e. because
   the transport-layer pseudo-header checksum only includes
   Identifiers, never Locators).  In turn, this is why not
   special multi-path TCP (or UDP or SCTP or other)
   transport-layer modifications are required.  (Caveat:
   Of course, the ILNP stack upgrade is needed in the
   first place.)

   The same concepts and general approach also apply to UDP and/or SCTP.


   As the Locator value no longer forms part of the node session
   state (e.g. TCP pseudo-header), it is easier to support
   localised addressing, which is sometimes also called "Private

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 16]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   Addressing", based on the use of local values of the Locator.
   This would be either in place of, or to supplement, existing
   NAT-based schemes. [RFC 1631] [RFC 3022]

   For example, a site that desires to use private addresses
   internally might deploy IPv6 Unique Local Addressing
   (ULA) for localised addressing, along with some form of ILNP/
   IPv6 Network Address Translation at a site border gateway.
   [ID-ULA] [RFC 4193]  This example is described in detail
   in [MILCOM09], both as a mechanism for site multi-homing
   and also as a mechanism to support site-controlled traffic

   In the simplest case, an ILNP capable NAT only would need to
   change the value of the Source Locator in an outbound packet,
   and the value of the Destination Locator for an inbound packet.
   Identifier values would not need to change, nor would
   transport-layer checksums, so a true end-to-end session
   could be maintained.

   If a site using localised addressing chooses to deploy a
   split-horizon DNS server, then the DNS server would advertise
   the global-scope Locator(s) of the site border routers outside
   the site to DNS clients outside the site, and would advertise
   the local-scope Locator(s) specific to that internal node to
   DNS clients inside the site.  Such deployments of split-horizon
   DNS servers are not unusual in the IPv4 Internet today.  If an
   internal node (e.g. portable computer) moves outside the site,
   it would follow the normal ILNP methods to update its
   authoritative DNS server with its current Locator set.  In this
   deployment model, the authoritative DNS server for that mobile
   device will be either the split-horizon DNS server itself or the
   master DNS server providing data to the split-horizon DNS server.

   If a site using localised addressing chooses not to deploy a
   split-horizon DNS server, then all internal nodes would
   advertise the global-scope Locator(s) of the site border routers.
   To deliver packets from one internal node to another internal
   node, the site would either choose to use layer-2 bridging
   (e.g. IEEE Spanning Tree, IEEE Rapid Spanning Tree, or a
   link-state layer-2 algorithm such as the IETF TRILL group or
   IEEE 802.1 are developing), or the interior routers would
   forward packets up to the nearest site border router,
   which in turn would then rewrite the Locators to appropriate
   local-scope values, and forward the packet towards the interior
   destination node.

   Alternately, for sites using localised addressing but not

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 17]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   deploying a split-horizon DNS server, the DNS server could
   return all global-scope and local-scope Locators to all queriers,
   and to assume that correspondent hosts would use address
   selection to choose the best Locator to use to reach a given
   correspondent. [RFC 3484] Hosts within the same site as the
   correspondent node would only have a ULA configured, and hence
   would select the ULA destination Locator for the correspondent.
   Hosts outside the site would not have the same ULA configured.
   Note that RFC 3484 probably needs to be updated to indicate
   that the longest-prefix matching rule is inadequate when
   comparing ULA-based Locators with global-scope Locators:
   to choose a ULA for a correspondent, a node must have a
   Locator that matches all 48 ULA bits of the target Locator

   We note that a deployment using private/local addressing can
   also provide site multi-homing by deploying site border
   routers in this manner.

   Please note that with this proposal, localised addressing
   (e.g. using Network Address Translation on the Locator bits)
   would work in harmony with multihoming, mobility, and IP


   A current issue is that the IP Security protocols, AH and ESP,
   have Security Associations that include the IP addresses of
   the secure session endpoints.  This was understood to be a
   problem when AH and ESP were originally defined, however the
   limited set of namespaces in the Internet Architecture did not
   provide any better choices at that time.

   Operationally, this binding causes problems for the use of the
   IPsec protocols through Network Address Translation devices,
   with mobile nodes (because the mobile node's IP address changes
   at each network-layer handoff), and with multi-homed nodes
   (because the session is bound to a particular interface of the
   multi-homed node, rather than being bound to the node
   itself).[RFC 3027][RFC 3715]

   To resolve the issue of IPsec interoperability through a
   NAT deployment, UDP encapsulation of IPsec is commonly
   used today.[RFC 3948]

   With this proposal, the IP Security protocols, AH and ESP,
   are enhanced to bind Security Associations only to

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 18]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   Identifier values and never to Locator values (and also
   not to an entire 128-bit IPv6 address).

   Similarly, key management protocols used with IPsec would be
   enhanced to deprecate use of IP addresses as identifiers and
   to substitute the use of the new Identifier for that

   This small change enables IPsec to work in harmony with
   multihoming, mobility, and localised addressing.  [MILCOM08]
   [MILCOM09] Further, it would obviate the need for specialised
   IPsec NAT Traversal mechanisms, thus simplifying IPsec
   implementations while enhancing deployability and
   interoperability. [RFC 3948]

   This change does not reduce the security provided by the
   IP Security protocols.


   As part of this proposal, additional DNS Resource Records have
   been proposed in a separate document. [ILNP-DNS] These new
   records store the Identifier and Locator values for nodes that
   have been upgraded to support the Identifier/Locator Split Mode.

   With this proposal, mobile or multi-homed nodes and sites are
   expected to use the existing "Secure Dynamic DNS Update" protocol
   to keep their Identifier and Locator records correct in its
   authoritative DNS server(s). [RFC 3007]

   While some might be surprised, Secure Dynamic DNS Update is
   available now in a very wide range of existing deployed systems.
   For example, Microsoft Windows XP (and later versions), the
   freely distributable BIND DNS software package (used in Apple
   MacOS X and in most UNIX systems), and the commercial Nominum DNS
   server all implement support for Secure Dynamic DNS Update and
   are known to interoperate. [Liu-DNS] There are credible reports
   that when a site deploys Microsoft's Active Directory, the site
   (silently) automatically deploys Secure Dynamic DNS
   Update. [Liu-DNS] So it appears that many sites have already
   deployed Secure Dynamic DNS Update even though they might not be
   aware they have already deployed that protocol. [Liu-DNS]

   Reverse DNS lookups, to find a node's Fully Qualified Domain Name
   from the combination of a Locator and related Identifier value,
   can be performed as at present.

   Previous research by others indicates that DNS caching is largely

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 19]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   ineffective, with the exception of NS records and the addresses
   of DNS servers referred to by NS records.[SBK2002] This means DNS
   caching performance will not be adversely affected by assigning
   very short time-to-live (TTL) values to the Locator records of
   typical nodes.[Bhatti10] It also means that it is preferable
   to deploy the DNS server function on nodes that have longer
   DNS TTL values, rather than on nodes that have shorter DNS
   TTL values.

   As discussed previously, LP records normally are stable,
   even if the L32 or L64 records they point to aren't stable,
   so LP records normally can be given very long DNS TTL values.

   Identifier values might be very long-lived (e.g. days) when they
   have been generated from an IEEE MAC Address on the system.
   Identifier values might have a shorter lifetime (e.g. hours) if
   they have been cryptographically-generated [RFC 3972], or have
   been created by the IPv6 Privacy Extensions [RFC 4941], or
   otherwise have the EUI-64 scope bit at the "local-scope" value.
   Note that when ILNP is used, the cryptographic generation
   method described in RFC-3972 is used only for the Identifier,
   omitting the Locator, thereby preserving roaming capability.
   Note that a given ILNP session normally will use a single
   Identifier value for the life of that session.

   Existing DNS specifications require that DNS clients and DNS
   resolvers obey the TTL values provided by the DNS servers.  In
   the context of this proposal, short DNS TTL values are assigned
   to particular DNS records to ensure that the ubiquitous DNS
   caching resolvers do not cache volatile values (e.g. Locator
   records of a mobile node) and consequently return stale
   information to new requestors.

   As a practical matter, it is not sensible to flush all Locator
   values associated with an existing session's correspondent node.
   Instead, Locator values cached for a correspondent node (in the
   ILNP Correspondent Cache, described in Section 12.1) SHOULD be
   marked as "aged" when their TTL has expired until either the next
   Locator Update message is received or there is other indication
   that a given Locator is not working any longer.

   During a long transition period, a node that is I/L-enabled
   SHOULD have not only ID and L64 (or ID and LP) records present in
   its authoritative DNS server, but also SHOULD have AAAA records
   in the DNS for the benefit of non-upgraded nodes.  This
   capability might be implemented strictly inside a DNS server,
   whereby the DNS server synthesised a set of AAAA records to
   advertise from the ID and Locator (i.e., L32, L64, or LP) values

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 20]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   that the node has kept updated in that DNS server.

   Existing DNS specifications require that a DNS resolver or DNS
   client ignore unrecognised DNS record types.  So gratuitously
   appending ID and Locator (i.e., L32, L64, or LP) records as
   "additional data" in DNS responses to AAAA queries ought not
   create any operational issues.


   This section is concerned with support for using
   existing ("legacy") applications over ILNP, including
   both referrals and APIs.

9.1 BSD Sockets APIs

   The existing BSD Sockets API can continue to be used with
   ILNP underneath the API.  That API can be implemented in a
   manner that hides the underlying protocol changes from the
   applications.  For example, the combination of a Locator
   and an Identifier can be used with the API in the place
   of an IPv6 address.

   So it is believed that existing IP address referrals can
   continue to work properly in most cases.  For a rapidly
   moving target node, referrals might break in at least some
   cases.  The potential for referral breakage is necessarily
   dependent upon the specific application and implementation
   being considered.

   It is suggested, however, that a new, optional, more abstract,
   C language API be created so that new applications may avoid
   delving into low-level details of the underlying network
   protocols.  Such an API would be useful today, even with
   the existing IPv4 and IPv6 Internet, whether or not ILNP
   were ever widely deployed.

9.2 Java APIs

   Most existing Java APIs already use abstracted network
   programming interfaces, for example in the java.Net.URL class.
   Because these APIs already hide the low-level network-protocol
   details from the applications, the applications using these APIs
   (and the APIs themselves) don't need any modification to work
   equally well with IPv4, IPv6, ILNP, and probably also HIP.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 21]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

9.3 Referrals in the Future

   The approach proposed in [ID-Referral] appears to be very
   suitable for use with ILNP, in addition to being suitable
   for use with the deployed Internet.  Protocols using that
   approach would not need modification to have their referrals
   work well with IPv4, IPv6, ILNP, and probably also other
   network protocols (e.g. HIP).

   A more sensible approach to referrals would be to use
   Fully-Qualified Domain Names (FQDNs), as is commonly done
   today with web URLs.  This is approach is highly portable
   across different network protocols, even with both the IPv4
   Internet or the IPv6 Internet.


   First, if one compares Figure 1 and Figure 2, one can see
   that IPv6 with the Identifier/Locator Split enhancement is
   fully backwards compatible with existing IPv6.  This means
   that no router software or silicon changes are necessary to
   support the proposed enhancements.  A router would be
   unaware whether the packet being forwarded were classic IPv6
   or the proposed enhanced version of IPv6.  So no changes to
   IPv6 routers is required to deploy this proposal.

   Further, IPv6 Neighbour Discovery should work fine as is.

   If a node that has been enhanced to support the Identifier/
   Locator Split mode initiates an IP session with another node,
   normally it will first perform a DNS lookup on the responding
   node's DNS name.  If the initiator node does not find any ID
   or L64 DNS resource records for the responder node, then the
   initiator uses the Classical IPv6 mode of operation for the
   new session with the responder, rather than trying to use
   the I/L Split mode for that session.  Of course, multiple
   transport-layer sessions can concurrently share a single
   network-layer (e.g. IP or ILNP) session.

   If the responder node for a new IP session has not been enhanced
   to support the I/L Split mode and receives initial packet(s)
   containing the Nonce Destination Option, the responder will drop
   the packet and send an ICMP Parameter Problem error message back
   to the initiator.  A responder node that has been upgraded to
   support the I/L Split mode that receives initial packet(s)
   containing the Nonce Destination Option knows those packets are
   ILNP packets by the presence of that Nonce Destination Option.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 22]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   If the initiator node does not receive a response from the
   responder in a timely manner (e.g. within TCP timeout for a TCP
   session) and also does not receive an ICMP Unreachable error
   message for that packet, OR if the initiator receives an ICMP
   Parameter Problem error message for that packet, then the
   initiator knows that the responder is not able to support the I/L
   Split Operating mode.  In this case, the initiator node SHOULD
   try again to create the new IP session but this time OMITTING the
   Nonce Destination Option, and this time operating in Classic IPv6
   mode, rather than I/L Split mode.

   Finally, since an ILNP node is also a fully-capable IPv6 node,
   then the upgraded node can use any standardised IPv6 mechanisms
   for communicating with a legacy IPv6 node (i.e. an IPv6 node
   without ILNP capability enhancements).  So ILNP will in no case
   be worse than existing IPv6, and in many cases ILNP will out
   perform existing IPv6.


   If a node has been enhanced to support the Identifier/Locator
   Split operating mode, that node's fully-qualified domain name
   will normally have one or more ID records and one or more Locator
   (i.e. L32, L64, and LP) records associated with the node within
   the DNS.

   When a host ("initiator") initiates a new IP session with a
   correspondent ("responder"), it normally will perform a DNS
   lookup to determine the address(es) of the responder.  A host
   that has been enhanced to support the Identifier/Locator Split
   operating mode normally will look for Identifier ("ID") and
   Locator (i.e. L32, L64, and LP) records in any received DNS
   replies.  DNS servers that support ID and Locator (i.e. L32, L64,
   and LP) records SHOULD include them (when they exist) as
   additional data in all DNS replies to queries for DNS AAAA

   If the initiator supports the I/L Split mode and from DNS
   information learns that the responder also supports the
   I/L Split mode, then the initiator will generate an
   unpredictable nonce value, store that value in a local
   Correspondent Cache, which is described in more detail below,
   and will include the Nonce Destination Option in its
   initial packet(s) to the responder.[ILNP-Nonce]

   If the responder supports the I/L Split mode and receives
   initial packet(s) containing the Nonce Destination Option,
   the responder will thereby know that the initiator supports

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 23]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   the I/L Split mode and the responder will also operate in
   I/L Split mode for this new IP session.

   If the responder supports the I/L Split mode and receives
   initial packet(s) NOT containing the Nonce Destination Option,
   the responder will thereby know that the initiator does NOT
   support the I/L Split mode and the responder will operate
   in classic IPv6 mode for this new IP session.

   The previous section described how interoperability between
   enhanced nodes and non-enhanced nodes is retained even if a
   non-enhanced node erroneously has ID and/or L64 DNS resource
   records in place (e.g. due to some accident).

   The mobility capabilities of ILNP might be the most applicable
   to the deployment world.  Despite substantial good efforts
   by many, neither Mobile IPv4 nor Mobile IPv6 are widely used
   at present.  There are credible reports of specialised
   deployments of Mobile IPv4 and/or Mobile IPv6 within some
   wireless networks built using some mobile telephony standards
   (e.g. CDMA2000).  However, much of the recent work in operating
   systems has focused on support for mobile devices (e.g. mobile
   telephone handsets, hand-held music players, hand-held
   organisers).  Those devices probably represent the fastest
   growth segment of the Internet at present.  Moreover, many
   vendors of such devices have included significant networking
   protocol improvements in incremental operating system updates,
   rather than always waiting for a new major release to add
   networking facilities.

   Data center operators might be interested in using ILNP to
   facilitate virtual machine mobility between VLANs within a
   data centre site or to a separate disaster recovery site.

   However, other users or vendors might be more interested by the
   new security models enabled by having Identifiers different from
   Locators, or they might be more interested in the ability to
   provide node-specific multi-homing, rather than always
   multi-homing an entire site.

   In the end, the marketplace has myriad users with various
   functional needs.  The set of improvements offered by ILNP is
   broad, and should appeal to a wide range of vendors and users.


   This section discusses implementation considerations that
   are not otherwise discussed in the ILNP Internet-Drafts.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 24]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

12.1  ILNP Correspondent Cache

   An ILNP-capable node will need to modify its network protocol
   implementation to add an ILNP Correspondent Cache.  In theory,
   this cache is within the ILNP network-layer.  However, many
   network protocol implementations do not have strict protocol
   separation or layering.  In the interest of efficient
   implementation, and to avoid unduly restricting implementers,
   an ILNP implementation is not required to limit the
   accessibility of ILNP Correspondent Cache to the network-layer.

   The ILNP Correspondent Cache contains at least the following
   inter-related data elements for the node itself:

        Set of Local Locator(s)
             & Preference value for each Locator
        Set of Local Identifier(s)

   and also the following per-correspondent data elements:
        Set of Correspondent's Locator(s)
             & Preference value for each Locator
        Set of Correspondent's Identifier(s)
        Nonce used from the local node to that correspondent
        Nonce used from that correspondent to the local node
        Valid Time

   For received packets containing an ILNP Nonce Destination Option,
   lookups in the ILNP Correspondent Cache MUST use the
   (Correspondent Identifier, Nonce) tuple as the lookup key.  This
   facilitates situations where, perhaps due to deployment of
   Local-scope Identifiers, more than one correspondent node is
   using the same Identifier value.

   For all other ILNP packets, lookups in the ILNP Correspondent
   Cache MUST use the (Correspondent Locator, Correspondent
   Identifier) tuple as the lookup key.  This facilitates situations
   where, perhaps due to deployment of Local-scope Identifiers, more
   than one correspondent node is using the same Identifier value.

   The Valid Time field indicates the remaining lifetime for which
   this ILNP session information is valid.  For time, a node might
   use UTC (e.g. via Network Time Protocol) or perhaps some
   node-specific time (e.g. seconds since node boot).  A table
   entry is current if the node's current time is less than or
   equal to the time in the Valid Time field, while a table entry
   is aged if the node's current time is greater than the time in
   the Valid Time field.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 25]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   While Locators are omitted from the transport-layer checksum,
   an implementation SHOULD use Locator values to distinguish
   between correspondents coincidentally using the same ID value
   (e.g. due to deployment of Local-scope Identifier values)
   when demultiplexing to determine which application(s) should
   receive the user data delivered by the transport-layer protocol.

12.2 ICMP Locator Updates

   While ILNP's ICMP Locator Update message is defined in a
   separate document [ILNP-ICMP], it is worth mentioning that
   received authenticated Locator Update messages cause the
   ILNP Correspondent Cache described just above to be updated.

   Implementers should keep in mind that a node or site might
   have a large number of concurrent Locators, and should
   ensure that a system fault does not arise if the system
   receives an authentic ICMP Locator Update containing a
   large number of Locator values.


   This proposal outlines a proposed evolution for the Internet
   Architecture to provide improved capabilities.  This section
   discusses security considerations for this proposal.  Note that
   ILNP provides security equivalent to IP for similar threats when
   similar mitigations (e.g. IPsec or not) are in use.  In some
   cases, but not all, ILNP exceeds that objective and has less
   security risk than IP.

13.1 Authentication of Locator Updates

   A separate document [ILNP-Nonce] proposes a new IPv6
   Destination Option that can be used to carry a session nonce
   end-to-end between communicating nodes.  That nonce provides
   protection against off-path attacks on an Identifier/Locator
   session.  The Nonce Destination Option is used ONLY for IP
   sessions in the Identifier/Locator Split mode.  The nonce
   values are exchanged in the initial packets of an ILNP

   Ordinary IPv6 is vulnerable to on-path attacks unless
   the IP Authentication Header or IP Encapsulating Security
   Payload is in use.  So the Nonce Destination Option
   only seeks to provide protection against off-path attacks
   on an IP session -- equivalent to ordinary IPv6 when
   not using IP Security.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 26]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   When the Identifier/Locator split mode is in use for an
   existing IP session, the Nonce Destination Option MUST be
   included in any ICMP control messages (e.g. ICMP Unreachable,
   ICMP Locator Update) sent with regard to that IP session.

   It is common to have non-symmetric paths between two nodes
   on the Internet.  To reduce the number of on-path nodes that
   know the Nonce value for a given session when the I/L split
   mode is in use, a nonce value is unidirectional, not
   bidirectional.  For example, for a session between two nodes
   A and B, one nonce value is used from A to B and a different
   nonce value is used from B to A.

   When in the I/L Split operating mode for an existing IP
   session, ICMP control messages received without a Nonce
   Destination Option MUST be discarded as forgeries.  This
   security event SHOULD be logged.

   When in the I/L Split operating mode for an existing IP
   session, ICMP control messages received without a correct
   nonce value inside the Nonce Destination Option MUST be
   discarded as forgeries.  This security event SHOULD be logged.

   When in the I/L Split operating mode for an existing IP
   session, and a node changes its Locator set, it should
   include the Nonce Destination Option in the first few
   data packets sent using a new Locator value, so that
   the recipient can validate the received data packets
   as valid (despite having an unexpected Source Locator

   For ID/Locator Split mode sessions operating in higher risk
   environments, the use of the cryptographic authentication
   provided by IP Authentication Header is recommended
   *in addition* to concurrent use of the Nonce Destination

   It is important to note that at present an IPv6 session is
   entirely vulnerable to on-path attacks unless IPsec is in use
   for that particular IPv6 session, so the security properties
   of the new proposal are never worse than for existing IPv6.

13.2 Forged Identifier Attacks

   In the deployed Internet, active attacks using packets with a
   forged Source IP Address have been publicly known at least since
   early 1995.[CA-1995-01] While these exist in the deployed
   Internet, they have not been widespread.  This is equivalent to

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 27]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   the issue of a forged Identifier value and demonstrates that this
   is not a new threat created by the Identifier/Locator-split mode
   of operation.

   One mitigation for these attacks has been to deploy Source IP
   Address Filtering.[RFC 2827] [RFC 3704]  Jun Bi at U. Tsinghua
   cites Arbor Networks as reporting that this mechanism has less
   than 50% deployment and cites an MIT analysis indicating that at
   least 25% of the deployed Internet permits forged source IP

   Other parts of this document discuss the probability of an
   accidental duplicate Identifier being used on the Internet.
   However, this sub-section instead focuses on methods for
   mitigating attacks based on packets containing deliberately
   forged Source Identifier values.

   First, the recommendations of [RFC 2827] & [RFC 3704] remain.
   So any packets that have a forged Locator value can be easily
   filtered using existing widely available mechanisms.

   Second, the receiving node does not blindly accept any packet
   with the proper Source Identifier and proper Destination
   Identifier as an authentic packet.  Instead, each node operating
   the I/L-split mode maintains an ILNP Correspondent Cache for each
   of its correspondents, as described above.  This cache contains
   two unidirectional nonce values (one used in control messages
   sent by this node, a different one used to authenticate messages
   from the other node).  The correspondent cache also contains
   the currently valid set of Locators and set of Identifiers for
   each correspondent node.  If a received packet contains valid
   Identifier values and a valid Destination Locator, but contains
   a Source Locator value that is not present in the correspondent
   cache, the packet is dropped without further processing as an
   invalid packet, unless the packet also contains a Nonce
   Destination Option with the correct value used for packets from
   the node with that Source Identifier to this node.  This prevents
   an off-path attacker from stealing an existing session.

   Third, any node can distinguish different nodes using the same
   Identifier value by other properties of their sessions.  For
   example, IPv6 Neighbour Discovery prevents more than one node
   from using the same source (Locator + Identifier) pair at the
   same time on the same link.  So cases of different nodes using
   the same Identifier value will involve nodes that have different
   sets of valid Locator values.  A node can thus demux based on the
   combination of Source Locator and Source Identifier if necessary.
   If IP Security is in use, the combination of the Source

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 28]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   Identifier and the SPI value would be sufficient to demux two
   different sessions.

   Fourth, deployments in high threat environments also SHOULD use
   the IP Authentication Header to authenticate control traffic and
   data traffic.  Because in the I/L-split mode, IP Security binds
   only to the Identifier values, and never to the Locator values,
   this enables a mobile or multi-homed node to use IPsec even when
   its Locator value(s) have just changed.

   Last, note well that ordinary IPv4, ordinary IPv6, Mobile IPv4,
   and also Mobile IPv6 already are vulnerable to forged Identifier
   and/or forged IP address attacks.  An attacker on the same link
   as the intended victim simply forges the victims MAC address and
   the victim's IP address.  With IPv6, when SEND and CGAs are in
   use, the victim node can defend its use of its IPv6 address using
   SEND.  With ILNP, when SEND and CGIs are in use, the victim node
   also can defend its use of its IPv6 address using SEND.  There
   are no standard mechanisms to authenticate ARP messages, so IPv4
   is especially vulnerable to this sort of attack.  These attacks
   also work against Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6.  In fact, when
   either form of Mobile IP is in use, there are additional risks,
   because the attacks work not only when the attacker has access to
   the victim's current IP subnetwork but also when the attacker has
   access to the victim's home IP subnetwork.  So the risks of
   using ILNP are not greater than exist today with IP or Mobile IP.

13.3 IP Security Enhancements

   The IP Security standards are enhanced here by binding IPsec
   Security Associations to the Identifiers of the session
   endpoints, rather than binding IPsec Security Associations
   to the IP Addresses as at present.  This change enhances the
   deployability and interoperability of the IP Security standards,
   but does not decrease the security provided by those protocols.

   Also, the IP Authentication Header omits the Source Locator and
   Destination Locator fields from its authentication calculations
   when ILNP is in use.  This enables IP AH to work well even
   through a NAT or other situation where a Locator value might
   change during transit.

13.4 DNS Security

   The DNS enhancements proposed here are entirely compatible with,
   and can be protected using, the existing IETF standards for DNS
   Security.[RFC 4033] The Secure DNS Dynamic Update mechanism used
   here is also used unchanged.[RFC 3007] So there is no change to

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 29]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   the security properties of the Domain Name System or of DNS
   servers due to ILNP.

13.5 Firewall Considerations

   In the proposed new scheme, stateful firewalls are able to
   authenticate ICMP control messages arriving on the external
   interface.  This enables more thoughtful handling of ICMP
   messages by firewalls than is commonly the case at present.  As
   the firewall is along the path between the communicating nodes,
   the firewall can snoop on the Session Nonce being carried in the
   initial packets of an I/L Split mode session.  The firewall can
   verify the correct nonce is present on incoming control packets,
   dropping any control packets that lack the correct nonce value.

   By always including the nonce in ILNP control messages, even when
   IP Security is also in use, the firewall can filter out off-path
   attacks against those ILNP messages.  In any event, a forged
   packet from an on-path attacker will still be detected when the
   IPsec input processing occurs in the receiving node; this will
   cause that forged packet to be dropped rather than acted upon.

13.6 Neighbour Discovery Authentication

   Nothing in this proposal prevents sites from using the Secure
   Neighbour Discovery (SEND) proposal for authenticating IPv6
   Neighbour Discovery. [RFC 3971]

13.7 Site Topology Obfuscation

   A site that wishes to obscure its internal topology information
   MAY do so by deploying site border routers that rewrite the
   Locator values for the site as packets enter or leave the site.

   For example, a site might choose to use a ULA prefix internally
   for this reason.[RFC 4193] [ID-ULA] In this case, the site border
   routers would rewrite the Source Locator of ILNP packets leaving
   the site to a global-scope Locator associated with the site.
   Also, those site border routers would rewrite the Destination
   Locator of packets entering the site from the global-scope
   Locator to an appropriate interior ULA Locator for the
   destination node.[MILCOM08]

13.8 Path Liveness

   Some perceive that an Identifier/Locator Split architecture
   creates a new issue that is sometimes called "Locator Liveness"
   or "Path Liveness".  This refers to the question of whether an IP

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 30]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   packet with a particular destination Locator value will be able
   to reach the intended destination or not, given that some
   otherwise valid paths might be unusable by the sending node
   (e.g. due to security policy or other administrative choice).
   In fact, this issue has existed in the IPv4 Internet for decades.

   For example, an IPv4 server might have multiple valid IP
   addresses, each advertised to the world via an DNS "A" record.
   However, at a given moment in time, it is possible that a given
   sending node might not be able to use a given (otherwise valid)
   destination IPv4 address in an IP packet to reach that IPv4

   So we see that using an Identifier/Locator Split architecture
   does not create this issue, nor does it make this issue worse
   than it is with the deployed IPv4 Internet.

   In ILNP, the same conceptual approach described in [RFC 5534] can
   be reused.  Alternatively, an ILNP node can reuse the existing
   IPv4 methods for determining whether a given path to the target
   destination is currently usable, which existing methods leverage
   transport-layer session state information that the communicating
   end systems are already keeping for transport-layer protocol

   Last, it is important for the reader to understand that the
   mechanism described in [ILNP-ICMP] is a performance optimisation,
   significantly shortening the layer-3 handoff time if/when a
   correspondent changes location.  Architecturally, using ICMP
   is no different from using UDP, of course.


   Some users have concerns about the issue of "location privacy",
   whereby the user's location might be determined by others.  The
   term "location privacy" does not have a crisp definition within
   the Internet community at present.  Some mean the location of a
   node relative to the Internet's routing topology, while others
   mean the geographic coordinates of the node (i.e. latitude X,
   longitude Y).  The concern seems to focus on Internet-enabled
   devices, most commonly handheld devices such as a "smart phone",
   that might have 1:1 mappings with individual users.

   There is a fundamental trade-off here.  Quality of a node's
   Internet connectivity tends to be inversely proportional to the
   "location privacy" of that node.  For example, if a node were
   to use a router with NAT as a privacy proxy, routing all traffic
   to and from the Internet via that proxy, then (a) latency will

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 31]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   increase as the distance increases between the node seeking
   privacy and its proxy, and (b) communications with the node
   seeking privacy will be more vulnerable to communication faults
   -- both due to the proxy itself (which might fail) and due to
   the longer path (which has more points of potential failure
   than a more direct path would have).

   Any Internet node that wishes for other Internet nodes to be able
   to initiate communications sessions with it needs to include
   associated address (e.g. A, AAAA) or locator (e.g. L32, L64, LP)
   records in the publicly accessible Domain Name System (DNS).
   Information placed in the DNS is publicly accessible.  Since the
   goal of DNS is to distribute information to other Internet nodes,
   it does not provide mechanisms for selective privacy.  Of course,
   a node that does not wish to be contacted need not be present in
   the DNS.

   In some cases, various parties have attempted to create mappings
   between IP address blocks and geographic locations.  The quality
   of such mappings appears to vary.[GUF07] Many such mapping
   efforts are driven themselves by efforts to comply with legal
   requirements in various legal jurisdictions.  For example,
   some content providers reportedly have licenses authorising
   distribution of content in one set of locations, but not
   in a different set of locations.

   ILNP does not compromise user location privacy any more than base
   IPv6.  In fact, by its nature ILNP provides additional choices to
   the user to protect their location privacy.  Both ILNP and IPv6
   permit use of identifier values generated using the IPv6
   Privacy Address extension.[RFC-4941]  ILNP and IPv6 also support
   a node having multiple unicast addresses/locators at the same
   time, which facilitates changing the node's addresses/locators
   over time.  IPv4 does not have any non-topological identifiers,
   and many IPv4 nodes only support 1 IPv4 unicast address per
   interface, so IPv4 is not directly comparable with IPv6 or ILNP.

   In normal operation with IPv4, IPv6, or ILNP, a mobile node
   intends to be accessible for new connection attempts from the
   global Internet and also wishes to have both optimal routing and
   maximal Internet availability, both for sent and received
   packets.  In that case, the node will want to have its addressing
   or location information kept in the DNS and made available to

   In some cases, a mobile node might only desire to initiate
   communications sessions with other Internet nodes, in which case
   the node need not be present in the DNS.  Some potential

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 32]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   correspondent nodes might, as a matter of local security policy,
   decline to communicate with nodes that are not present in the
   DNS.  For example, some deployed IPv4-capable mail relays refuse
   to communicate with an initiating node that lacks an appropriate
   PTR record in the DNS.

   In some cases, for example intermittent electronic mail access or
   browsing specific web pages, support for long-lived network
   sessions (i.e. where session lifetime is longer than the time the
   node remains on the same subnetwork) is not required.  In those
   cases, support for node mobility (i.e. session continuity even
   when the subnetwork point of attachment changes) is not required
   and need not be used.

   If a ILNP node that is mobile chooses not to use DNS for
   rendezvous, yet desires to permit any node on the global Internet
   to initiate communications with that node, then that node can
   fall back to using Mobile IPv4 or Mobile IPv6 instead.

   Many residential broadband Internet users are subject to
   involuntary renumbering, usually when their ISP's DHCP server(s)
   deny a DHCP RENEW request and instead issue different IP
   addressing information to the residential user's device(s).  In
   many cases, such users want their home server(s) or client(s) to
   be externally reachable.  Such users today often use Secure DNS
   Dynamic Update to update their addressing or location information
   in the DNS entries, for the devices they wish to make reachable
   from the global Internet.[RFC2136, RFC3007] This option exists
   for those users, whether they use IPv4, IPv6, or ILNP. Users also
   have the option not to use such mechanisms.


   This document has no IANA considerations.


   This section provides both normative and informative
   references relating to this note.

16.1.  Normative References

   [RFC 768]    J. Postel, "User Datagram Protocol", RFC-768,
                August 1980.

   [RFC 793]    J. Postel, "Transmission Control Protocol",
                RFC-793, September 1981.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 33]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   [RFC 826]    D. Plummer, "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol:
                Or Converting Network Protocol Addresses to
                48 bit Ethernet Address for Transmission on
                Ethernet Hardware", RFC 826, November 1982.

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

   [RFC 2460]   S. Deering & R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol
                Version 6 Specification", RFC-2460,
                December 1998.

   [RFC 3007]   B. Wellington, "Secure Domain Name System
                Dynamic Update", RFC-3007, November 2000.

   [RFC 3484]   R. Draves, "Derfault Address Selection for IPv6",
             RFC 3484, February 2003.

   [RFC 4033]   R. Arends, et alia, "DNS Security Introduction
                and Requirements", RFC-4033, March 2005.

   [RFC 4219]   R. Hinden & S. Deering, "IP Version 6
                Addressing Architecture", RFC-4219,
                February 2006.

   [RFC 4861]   T. Narten, E. Nordmark, W. Simpson, & H. Soliman,
                "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)",
                RFC 4861, September 2007.

16.2.  Informative References

   [8+8]        M. O'Dell, "8+8 - An Alternate Addressing
                Architecture for IPv6", Internet-Draft,
                October 1996.

   [Bhatti10]   S. Bhatti, "Reducing DNS Caching (or 'How low
             can we go ?')", Presentation to 38th JANET
             Networkshop, 31st March 2010, UK Joint
             Academic Network (JANET), University of Manchester,
             Manchester, England, UK.

   [CA-1995-01] US CERT, "IP Spoofing Attacks and Hijacked
                Terminal Connections", CERT Advisory 1995-01,
                Issued 23 JAN 1995, Revised 23 SEP 1997.

   [GSE]        M. O'Dell, "GSE - An Alternate Addressing
                Architecture for IPv6", Internet-Draft,

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 34]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

                February 1997.

   [ID-ULA]     R. Hinden, G. Huston, & T. Narten, "Centrally
                Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses",
                draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt, 15 June 2007.

   [ID-Referral] B. Carpenter and others, "A Generic Referral
                 Object for Internet Entities",
                 20 October 2009.

   [IEEE-EUI]   IEEE Standards Association, "Guidelines for
                64-bit Global Identifier (EUI-64)", IEEE,

   [IEN 1]      C.J. Bennett, S.W. Edge, & A.J. Hinchley,
                "Issues in the Interconnection of Datagram
                Networks", Internet Experiment Note (IEN) 1,
                INDRA Note 637, PSPWN 76, University College
                London, London, England, UK, WC1E 6BT,
                29 July 1977.

   [IEN 19]     J. F. Shoch, "Inter-Network Naming, Addressing,
                and Routing", IEN-19, January 1978.

   [IEN 23]     J. F. Shoch, "On Names, Addresses, and
                Routings", IEN-23, January 1978.

   [IEN 31]     D. Cohen, "On Names, Addresses, and Routings
                (II)", IEN-31, April 1978.

   [ILNP-Nonce] R. Atkinson, "Nonce Destination Option",
                draft-rja-ilnp-nonce-10.txt, February 2011.

   [ILNP-DNS]   R. Atkinson, "DNS Resource Records for ILNP",
                draft-rja-ilnp-dns-10.txt, February 2011.

   [ILNP-ICMP]  R. Atkinson, "ICMP Locator Update message"
                draft-rja-ilnp-icmp-10.txt, February 2011.

   [IPng95]     D. Clark, "A thought on addressing",
             electronic mail message to IETF IPng WG,
             Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT,
             Cambridge, MA, USA, 11 January 1995.

   [Liu-DNS]    C. Liu & P. Albitz, "DNS & Bind", 5th Edition,

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 35]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

                O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA, USA,
                May 2006.  ISBN 0-596-10057-4

   [MobiArch07] R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, & S. Hailes,
                "Mobility as an Integrated Service Through
                the Use of Naming", Proceedings of
                ACM MobiArch 2007, August 2007,
                Kyoto, Japan.

   [MobiArch08] R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, & S. Hailes,
                "Mobility Through Naming: Impact on DNS",
                Proceedings of ACM MobiArch 2008, August 2008,
                Seattle, WA, USA.

   [MobiWAC07]  R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, & S. Hailes,
                "A Proposal for Unifying Mobility with
                Multi-Homing, NAT, & Security",
                Proceedings of ACM MobiWAC 2007, Chania,
                Crete. ACM, October 2007.

   [MILCOM08]   R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, & S. Hailes,
                "Harmonised Resilience, Security, and Mobility
                Capability for IP", Proceedings of IEEE
                Military Communications (MILCOM) Conference,
                San Diego, CA, USA, November 2008.

   [MILCOM09]   R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, & S. Hailes,
                "Site-Controlled Secure Multi-Homing and
                Traffic Engineering For IP", Proceedings of
                IEEE Military Communications (MILCOM) Conference,
                Boston, MA, USA, October 2009.

   [PHG02]      A. Pappas, S. Hailes, & R. Giaffreda,
                "Mobile Host Location Tracking through DNS",
                Proceedings of IEEE London Communications
                Symposium, IEEE, September 2002, London,
                England, UK.

   [SBK2002]    Alex C. Snoeren, Hari Balakrishnan, & M. Frans
                Kaashoek, "Reconsidering Internet Mobility",
                Proceedings of 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in
                Operating Systems, 2002.

   [SIPP94]     Bob Smart, "Re: IPng Directorate meeting in
             Chicago; possible SIPP changes", electronic
             mail to the IETF SIPP WG mailing list,

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 36]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

             Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research
             Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, VIC, 3001,
             Australia, 2 June 1994.

   [RFC 814]    D.D. Clark, "Names, Addresses, Ports, and
                Routes", RFC-814, July 1982.

   [RFC 1498]   J.H. Saltzer, "On the Naming and Binding of
                Network Destinations", RFC-1498, August 1993.

   [RFC 1631]   K. Egevang & P. Francis, "The IP Network
                Address Translator (NAT)", RFC-1631, May 1994.

   [RFC 2827]   P. Ferguson & D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
                Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ
                IP Source Address Spoofing", RFC-2827, May 2000.

   [RFC 3022]   P. Srisuresh & K. Egevang, "Traditional IP
                Network Address Translator", RFC-3022,
                January 2001.

   [RFC 3027]   M. Holdrege and P Srisuresh, "Protocol
                Complications of the IP Network Address
                Translator", RFC-3027, January 2001.

   [RFC 3704]   F. Baker & P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for
                Multihomed Networks, RFC-3704, March 2004.

   [RFC 3715]   B. Aboba and W. Dixon, "IPsec-Network Address
                Translation (NAT) Compatibility Requirements",
                RFC-3715, March 2004.

   [RFC 3775]   D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, "Mobility
                Support in IPv6", RFC-3775, June 2004.

   [RFC 3948]   A. Huttunen, et alia, "UDP Encapsulation of
                IPsec ESP Packets", RFC-3948, January 2005.

   [RFC 3971]   J. Arkko, J. Kempf, B. Zill, & P. Nikander,
                "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC-3971
                March 2005.

   [RFC 3972]   T. Aura, "Cryptographically Generated Addresses
                (CGAs)", RFC-3972, March 2005.

   [RFC 4193]   R. Hinden & B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6
                Unicast Addresses, RFC-4193, October 2005.

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 37]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   [RFC 4941]   T. Narten, R. Draves, & S. Krishnan, "Privacy
                Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
                in IPv6", RFC-4941, September 2007.

   [RFC 5061]   R. Stewart, Q. Xie, M. Tuexen, S. Maruyama, &
                M. Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol
                (SCTP) Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC-5061,
                September 2007.

   [RFC 5534]   J. Arkko & I. van Beijnum, "Failure Detection and
                Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6
                Multihoming", RFC-5534, June 2009.

   [TeleSys]    R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, & S. Hailes,
                "ILNP: Mobility, Multi-Homing, Localised Addressing
                and Security Through Naming", Telecommunications
                Systems, Volume 42, Number 3-4, pp 273-291,
                Springer-Verlag, December 2009, ISSN 1018-4864.

   [GUF07]      Bamba Gueye, Steve Uhlig, & Serge Fdida,
                "Investigating the Imprecision of IP Block-Based
                Geolocation", Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
                Volume 4427, pp. 237-240, Springer-Verlag,
                Heidelberg, Germany, 2007.


   Steve Blake, Mohamed Boucadair, Saleem Bhatti, Noel Chiappa,
   Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley, Volker Hilt,
   Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter and
   Robin Whittle (in alphabetical order) provided review and
   feedback on earlier versions of this document.  Steve Blake
   provided an especially thorough review of the entire ILNP
   document set, which was extremely helpful.

   Noel Chiappa graciously provided the author with copies
   of the original email messages cited here as [SIPP94] and
   [IPng95], which enabled the precise citation of those
   messages herein.

Author's Address

   RJ Atkinson
   McLean, VA
   22103 USA


Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 38]

Internet Draft     ILNP Intro         27 JUL 2011

   Expires: 27 JAN 2012

Atkinson           Expires in 6 months                         [Page 39]