Network Working Group F. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology
Updates: rfc4191, rfc4861 (if approved) J. Woodyatt
Intended status: Standards Track Google
Expires: November 13, 2017 May 12, 2017
Route Information Options in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
draft-templin-6man-rio-redirect-03.txt
Abstract
The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol provides a Router
Solicitation (RS) function allowing nodes to solicit a Router
Advertisement (RA) response from an on-link router, a Neighbor
Solicitation (NS) function allowing nodes to solicit a Neighbor
Advertisement (NA) response from an on-link neighbor, and a Redirect
function allowing routers to inform nodes of a better next hop
neighbor on the link toward the destination. This document specifies
backward-compatible extensions to IPv6 ND messages to support the
discovery of more-specific routes.
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 November 13, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Route Information Options in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Messages 4
4.1. Classical Redirection Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. RIO Redirection Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Router Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. Source Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. Target Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.4. Operation Without Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.5. Multiple RIOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.6. Why NS/NA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.7. RIOs in RS Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Link-layer Address Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Interfaces with Multiple Link-Layer Addresses . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)" [RFC4861] (IPv6 ND)
provides a Router Solicitation (RS) function allowing nodes to
solicit a Router Advertisement (RA) response from an on-link router,
a Neighbor Solicitation (NS) function allowing nodes to solicit a
Neighbor Advertisement (NA) response from an on-link neighbor, and a
Redirect function allowing routers to inform nodes of a better next
hop neighbor on the link toward the destination. Further guidance
for processing Redirect messages is given in "First-Hop Router
Selection by Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network" [RFC8028].
"Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
specifies a Route Information Option (RIO) that routers can include
in RA messages to inform recipients of more-specific routes. This
document specifies a backward-compatible extension to allow nodes to
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
include RIOs in other IPv6 ND messages to support the dynamic
discovery of more-specific routes.
2. Terminology
The terminology in the normative references applies.
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 [RFC2119]. Lower case
uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying RFC2119
significance.
3. Motivation
An example of a good application for RIO is the local-area subnets
served by the routers described in "Basic Requirements for IPv6
Customer Edge Routers" [RFC7084]. While many customer edge routers
are capable of operating in a mode with a dynamic routing protocol
operating in the local-area network, the default mode of operation is
typically designed for unmanaged operation without any dynamic
routing protocol. On these networks, the only means for any node to
learn about routers on the link is by using the Router Discovery
protocol described in [RFC4861].
Nevertheless, hosts on unmanaged home subnets may use "IPv6 Prefix
Options for DHCPv6" [RFC3633] (DHCPv6 PD) to receive IPv6 routing
prefixes for additional subnets allocated from the space provided by
the service provider, and operate as routers for other links where
hosts in delegated subnets are attached. Hosts may even learn about
more specific routes than the default route by processing RIOs in RA
messages according to the rules for Type "C" hosts described in
[RFC4191].
However, due to perceptions of the security considerations for hosts
in processing RIOs on unmanaged networks, the default configuration
for common host IPv6 implementations is not Type "C" behavior.
Accordingly, on typical home networks the forwarding path from hosts
on one subnet to destinations on every off-link local subnet always
passes through the customer edge router, even when a shorter path
would otherwise be available through an on-link router. This adds
costs for retransmission on shared LAN media, often adding latency
and jitter with queuing delay and delay variability. This is not
materially different under the scenarios described in "IPv6 Home
Networking Architecture Principles" [RFC7368] except that routers may
use an interior dynamic routing protocol to coordinate sending of
RIOs in RA messages, which as explained above, are not processed by
typical hosts.
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
In increasingly common practice, nodes that receive prefix
delegations may connect an entourage of "Internet of Things" back end
devices. The node may therefore appear as a router from the
perspective of the back end devices but behave as a host on the link
from the perspective of receiving Redirects and without participating
in a dynamic routing protocol. Instead, the node sends initial
packets with a source address taken from one of the node's delegated
prefixes via a default or more-specific route with a router on the
link as the next-hop. The router may return a Redirect message with
an RIO if there is a target node on the link that would be a better
next-hop for the destination. The target may itself be a holder of
prefix delegations that behaves in a similar fashion as the source
node. Examples of where such relationships apply include civil
aviation networks, unmanned aerial vehicle networks and enterprise
networks that host mobile end user devices (e.g., cell phones,
tablets, laptops, etc.).
By using RIOs in IPv6 ND messages, the forwarding path between
subnets can be shortened while accepting a much narrower opening of
attack surfaces on general purpose hosts related to the Router
Discovery protocol. The basic idea is simple: hosts normally send
packets for off-link destinations to their default router unless they
receive ND Redirect messages designating another on-link node as the
target. This document allows ND Redirects additionally to suggest
another on-link node as the target for one or more routing prefixes,
including one with the destination. Hosts that receive RIOs in ND
Redirect messages then unicast NS messages to the target containing
those RIOs, and process the unicast NA messages the target sends in
reply. If hosts only process RIOs in NA messages when they have
previously unicast them in NS messages to the targets of received ND
Redirect messages, then hosts only process RIO at the initiative of
routers they already accept as authoritative.
4. Route Information Options in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Messages
The RIO is specified for inclusion in RA messages in Section 2.3 of
[RFC4191], while the neighbor discovery functions are specified in
[RFC4861]. This specification permits routers to include RIOs in
other IPv6 ND messages so that recipients can discover a better next
hop for a destination *prefix* instead of just a specific
destination. This specification therefore updates [RFC4191] and
[RFC4861], as discussed in the following sections.
4.1. Classical Redirection Scenario
In the classical redirection scenario there are three actors, namely
the Source, Router and Target as shown in Figure 1:
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
+-------------------+
| |
| Router |
| |
+---------+---------+
|
|
X---------+----------------+---------------+---------X
| Link |
| |
+---------+---------+ +----------+--------+
| | | |
| Source | | Target |
| | | |
+-------------------+ +---------+---------+
|
2001:db8::/N
|
X-+----+--+-------+-X
| | |
+--+ +--+ +--+
|H1| |H2| .... |Hn|
+--+ +--+ +--+
Figure 1: Classical Redirection Scenario
In addition, the Target may be a router that connects an arbitrarily-
complex set of IPv6 networks (e.g., as depicted by 2001:db8::/N in
the figure) with hosts H(i).
In this scenario, the Source initially has no route for 2001:db8::/N
and must send initial packets destined to correspondents H(i) via a
first-hop Router. Upon receiving the packets, the Router forwards
the packets to the Target and may also send a Redirect message back
to the Source with a destination address corresponding to the packet
that triggered the Redirect, the target link-local address and the
target link-layer address. After receiving the message, the Source
may begin sending packets destined to H(i) directly to the Target,
which will then forward them to its connected networks.
This specification augments the classical Redirection scenario by
allowing the Router to include an entire prefix (e.g., 2001:db8::/N)
in an RIO option in the Redirect message, and thereafter allowing the
Source to include an RIO in an NS message and the Target to include
an RIO in its NA response. The following sections present this
"augmented" RIO redirection scenario.
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
4.2. RIO Redirection Scenario
In the RIO redirection scenario, the Source sends initial packets via
the Router the same as in the classical scenario. When the Router
receives the packets, it searches its routing tables for a route that
is assigned to the Target and that covers the destination address of
the packet. The Router then includes this prefix in an RIO in a
Redirect message to send back to the Source. When the Source
receives the Redirect message, it includes the RIO in an NS message
to send to the Target. When the Target receives the NS message, it
first verifies that the prefix included in the RIO is indeed one of
its own prefixes. If so, the Target fills in the Prefix, Route
Lifetime and Prf values in the RIO option, and returns the option in
a unicast NA message reply to the Source. The Source can then
install the prefix in the RIO option in its routing table. The
following sections present more detailed specifications for the
Router, Source and Target.
4.2.1. Router Specification
When the Router receives a packet from the Source that is destined to
a host in an IPv6 network aggregated by the Target, the Router
searches its routing table for a prefix that covers the destination
address(e.g., 2001:db8::/N, as depicted in Figure 1). The Router
then prepares a Redirect message with the Destination field set to
the packet's IPv6 destination address, with the Target field set to
the link-local address of the Target, with a Target Link-Layer
Address option (TLLAO) set to the link-layer address of the Target,
and with an RIO that includes a Prefix for the destination with Route
Lifetime and Prf set to 0. The Router then sends the Redirect
message to the Source (subject to rate limiting).
4.2.2. Source Specification
According to [RFC4861], a Source that receives a valid Redirect
message updates its destination cache per the Destination Address and
its neighbor cache per the Target Address. According to [RFC4191],
Sources can be classified as Type "A", "B" or "C" based on how they
process RIOs, where a Type "C" Source updates its routing table per
any RIO elements included in an RA message. Finally, according to
[RFC8028], a Type "C" Source operating on a Multi-Prefix Network with
multiple default routes can make source address selection decisions
based on information in its routing table decorated with information
derived from the source of the RIO element.
In light of these considerations, this document introduces a new Type
"D" behavior for Sources with the same behavior as a Type "C" Source,
but which also process RIO elements in Redirect and NA messages, and
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
include RIO elements in NS messages. Type "D" Sources process
Redirect messages with RIO elements by first verifying that the
Prefix in the first RIO matches the Destination address. If the
Destination address does not match the Prefix, the Source discards
the Redirect message. Otherwise, the Source updates its neighbor
cache per the Target Address and its destination cache per the
Destination Address the same as for classical redirection. Next, the
Source MAY send an NS message containing an RIO option to the Target
to elicit an NA response.
When the Type 'D' Source receives the solicited NA message from the
Target, if the NA includes an RIO with a Prefix matching the one that
it received in the Redirect message the Source installs the Prefix in
its routing table including the Route Lifetime and Prf values, and
with the Target's address as the next hop.
After the Source installs the Prefix in its routing table, it MAY
then begin sending packets with destination addresses that match the
Prefix directly to the Target Instead of sending them to the Router.
The Source SHOULD decrement the Route Lifetime and MAY send new NS
messages to receive a fresh Route Lifetime (if the Route Lifetime
decrements to 0, the Source instead deletes the route from its
routing table). The Source MAY furthermore delete the route at any
time and again allow packets to flow through the Router which may
send a fresh Redirect. The Source should then again test the route
by performing a unicast NS/NA exchange with the Target the same as
described above.
After updating its routing table, the Source MAY receive an
unsolicited NA message from the Target with an RIO with new Route
Lifetime and/or Prf values. If the RIO Prefix is in its routing
table, and if the Route Lifetime value is 0, the Source deletes the
corresponding route.
After updating its routing table, the Source MAY also receive a
Destination Unreachable message from the Target with Code 0 ("no
route to destination"). If so, the Source again deletes the
corresponding route from its routing table.
4.2.3. Target Specification
When the Target receives an NS message from the Source containing an
RIO, it examines the Prefix to see if it matches one of the prefixes
in its prefix list. If so, the Target copies the RIO into a unicast
NA message to send back to the Source and fills in the Route Lifetime
and Prf fields with values that are consistent with its prefix list.
The Target then sends the NA message back to the Source.
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
At some later time, the Target may either alter or deprecate the
corresponding prefix in its prefix list. If the Target has sent
solicited NA messages with RIO options to one or more Sources, the
Target SHOULD send unsolicited NA messages with RIOs that include the
Prefix and with Route Lifetime set to 0. If the Target receives
packets with destination addresses that do not match a prefix in its
prefix list, the target sends a Destination Unreachable message to
the Source with Code 0 ("no route to destination"), subject to rate
limiting.
4.2.4. Operation Without Redirects
If the Source has some way to determine the Target's link-local
address without receiving a Redirect message from the Router, the
Source MAY send an NS message with an RIO directly to the Target with
the Prefix field set to the destination address of an IPv6 packet and
with Prefix Length set to 128.
When the Target receives the NS message, it prepares an NA response
with an RIO that includes a Prefix and Prefix length for one of its
prefixes that covers the destination address. The Target then sends
the NA message to the Source.
Before accepting the NA message, the Source must have assurance that
the Target is authoritative for its claimed Prefix and Prefix length
(e.g., through an authoritative intermediate node that examines the
message and drops it if the claims are invalid).
4.2.5. Multiple RIOs
If a Redirect includes multiple RIOs, the Source only checks the
destination address for a match against the Prefix in the first RIO.
If an NA message includes multiple RIOs, the Source only accepts
those Prefixes for which it has some way of knowing that the Target
is the correct next hop (e.g., via a Redirect).
If an NS message includes multiple RIOs, the Target only responds to
those Prefixes with matching entries in its prefix list.
4.2.6. Why NS/NA?
Since [RFC4191] already specifies the inclusion of RIOs in RA
messages, a natural question is why this document advocates the use
of NS/NA instead of RS/RA?
First, NS/NA exchanges used by the IPv6 Neighbor Unreachability
Detection (NUD) procedure are unicast-only whereas RA responses to RS
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
messages are typically sent as multicast. Since this mechanism must
operate only between the Source and Target without disturbing any
other nodes on the link, the use of unicast-only exchanges is
required.
Second, the IPv6 ND specification places restrictions on minimum
delays between RA messages. Since this mechanism expects an
immediate advertisement from the Target in response to the Source's
solicitation, only the NS/NA exchange can satisfy this property.
Third, the RA message is the "swiss army knife" of the IPv6 ND
protocol. RA messages carry numerous configuration parameters for
nodes on the link, including Cur Hop Limit, M/O flags, Router
Lifetime, Reachable Time, Retrans Time, Prefix Information Options,
MTU options, etc. The Target must not advertise any of this
information to the soliciting Source.
Finally, operators are deeply concerned about the security of RA
messages - so much so that they deploy link security mechanisms that
drop RA messages originating from nodes claiming to be an
authoritative router for the link.
4.2.7. RIOs in RS Messages
This document permits a source host to include RIOs in RS messages in
order to solicit RIOs in the corresponding RA messages from a trusted
router. The RS/RA RIO exchange is conducted in the same fashion as
for NS/NA exchanges, with the exception that RA messages may be
returned as multicast and/or may also include other configuration
information for the link.
5. Implementation Status
The IPv6 ND functions and RIOs are widely deployed in IPv6
implementations.
6. IANA Considerations
This document introduces no IANA considerations.
7. Security Considerations
The Redirect message validation rules in Section 8.1 of [RFC4861]
require recipients to verify that the IP source address of the
Redirect is the same as the current first-hop router for the
specified ICMP Destination Address. Recipients therefore naturally
reject any Redirect message with an incorrect source address.
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
Other security considerations for IPv6 ND messages that include RIOs
are the same as specified in Section 11 of [RFC4861]. Namely, the
protocol must take measures to secure IPv6 ND messages on links where
spoofing attacks are possible.
A spoofed ND message containing no RIOs could cause corruption in the
recipient's destination cache, while a spoofed ND message containing
RIOs could corrupt the host's routing tables. While the latter would
seem to be a more onerous result, the possibility for corruption is
unacceptable in either case.
"IPv6 ND Trust Models and Threats" [RFC3756] discusses spoofing
attacks, and states that: "This attack is not a concern if access to
the link is restricted to trusted nodes". "SEcure Neighbor Discovery
(SEND)" [RFC3971] provides one possible mitigation for other cases.
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard" [RFC6105] ("RA Guard") describes a
layer-2 filtering technique intended for network operators to use in
protecting hosts from receiving RA messages sent by nodes that are
not among the set of routers regarded as legitimate by the network
operator.
A soliciting node must have some form of trust basis for knowing that
the advertising node is authoritative for the prefixes it includes in
RIOs. For example, when an NS/NA exchange is triggered by the
receipt of a Redirect, the soliciting node can verify that the RIOs
in the NA message match the ones it received in the Redirect message.
8. Acknowledgements
Joe Touch suggested a standalone draft to document this approach in
discussions on the intarea list. The work was subsequently
transferred to the 6man list, where the following individuals
provided valuable feedback: Mikael Abrahamsson, Zied Bouziri, Brian
Carpenter, Steinar Haug, Christian Huitema, Tatuya Jinmei, Tomoyuki
Sahara.
Discussion with colleagues during the "bits-and-bites" session at
IETF98 helped shape this document. Those colleagues are gratefully
acknowledged for their contributions.
This work was sponsored through several ongoing initiatives,
including 1) the NASA Safe Autonomous Systems Operation (SASO)
program under NASA contract number NNA16BD84C, 2) the FAA SE2025
contract number DTFAWA-15-D-00030, 3) the Boeing Information
Technology (BIT) MobileNet program, and 4) the Boeing Research &
Technology (BR&T) enterprise autonomy program.
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[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>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[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>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Ed., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6
Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats",
RFC 3756, DOI 10.17487/RFC3756, May 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3756>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
[RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7368] Chown, T., Ed., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J.
Weil, "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles",
RFC 7368, DOI 10.17487/RFC7368, October 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368>.
[RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.
Appendix A. Link-layer Address Changes
Type "D" hosts send unsolicited NAs to announce link-layer address
changes per standard neighbor discovery [RFC4861]. Link-layer
address changes may be due to localized factors such as hot-swap of
an interface card, but could also occur during movement to a new
point of attachment on the same link.
Appendix B. Interfaces with Multiple Link-Layer Addresses
Type "D" host interfaces may have multiple connections to the link;
each with its own link-layer address. Type "D" nodes can therefore
include multiple link-layer address options in IPv6 ND messages.
Neighbors that receive these messages can cache and select link-layer
addresses in a manner outside the scope of this specification.
Authors' Addresses
Fred L. Templin (editor)
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
USA
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RIOs in Redirects May 2017
James Woodyatt
Google
3400 Hillview Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94304
USA
Email: jhw@google.com
Templin & Woodyatt Expires November 13, 2017 [Page 13]