Network Working Group F. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology
Intended status: Informational May 29, 2018
Expires: November 30, 2018
IPv6 Prefix Delegation Models
draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost-20.txt
Abstract
IPv6 prefixes are typically delegated to requesting routers which
assign them to their downstream-attached links and networks. The
requesting node can provision the prefix according to whether it acts
as a router on behalf of any downstream networks and/or as a host on
behalf of its local applications. In the latter case, the requesting
node can use portions of the delegated prefix for its own multi-
addressing purposes. This document therefore considers prefix
delegation models for both the classic routing and multi-addressing
use cases.
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 https://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 30, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Multi-Addressing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Multi-Addressing Alternatives for Delegated Prefixes . . . . 6
5. Address Autoconfiguration Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. MLD/DAD Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Dynamic Routing Protocol Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. ICMPv6 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Prefix Delegation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
IPv6 Prefix Delegation (PD) entails 1) the communication of a prefix
from a server to a requesting router, 2) a representation of the
prefix in the network's Routing Information Base (RIB) and the first-
hop router's forwarding information base (FIB), and 3) a control
messaging service to maintain prefix lifetimes. Following
delegation, the prefix is available for the requesting router's
exclusive use and is not shared with any other nodes. This document
considers prefix delegation models where the requesting node acts as
a router on behalf of any downstream networks and/or as a host on
behalf of its local applications.
For nodes that connect downstream-attached networks (e.g., a
cellphone that connects a "tethered" Internet of Things, a host with
a complex internal network of virtual machines, etc.), the classic
routing model applies as shown in Figure 1:
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
.---------.
,-( )-.
( +----------+ )
( |Server 'S'| )
( +----------+ )
( Network 'N' )
`-(__________)-'
|
+----------+----------+
| first-hop router 'F'|
+----------+----------+
|
upstream link |
|
+----------+----------+
| upstream interface |
+---------------------+
| |
|requesting router 'R'|
| (Prefix 'P') |
| |
+--+-+--+-+--+-----+--+
|A1| |A2| |A3| ... |Aj|
+--+-+--+-+--+-----+--+
| downstream interface|
+----------+----------+
|
downstream link |
|
X----+-------------+--------+----+---------------+---X
| | | |
+---++-+--+ +---++-+--+ +---++-+--+ +---++-+--+
| |Ak| | | |Al| | | |Am| | | |A*| |
| +--+ | | +--+ | | +--+ | | +--+ |
| host H1 | | host H2 | | host H3 | ... | host Hn |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
<-------------- Downstream Network ------------->
Figure 1: Classic Routing Model
In this model, there is a server 'S' located somewhere in network 'N'
to which first-hop router 'F' is also connected. When server 'S'
delegates prefix 'P', first-hop router 'F' configures a FIB entry
with requesting router ''R' as the next hop, and the prefix is
injected into network 'N's RIB. Meanwhile, 'R' distributes 'P' to
its downstream external (physical) and/or internal (virtual)
networks. 'R' assigns addresses 'A(*)' taken from 'P' to downstream
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
interfaces, and hosts 'H(i)' on downstream networks assign addresses
'A(*)' taken from 'P' to their interface attachments to the
downstream link. 'R' then acts as a router for hosts 'H(i)' on
downstream networks and as a host on behalf of its local
applications, i.e., the same as for any router. (This model
additionaly supports recursive prefix sub-delegation to other
requesting routers more deeply embedded in the downstream network,
e.g., sub-delegation of a /48 into multiple /56 prefixes, sub-
delegation of a /56 into multiple /60 prefixes, etc.).
This document also considers the case when 'R' does not have any
downstream interfaces, and can use 'P' solely for its own internal
multi-addressing purposes. [RFC7934] provides Best Current Practice
(BCP) motivations for the benefits of multi-addressing, while an
operational means for providing nodes with multiple addresses is
given in [RFC8273]. The following prefix delegation models
compliment this multi-addressing framework while providing greater
efficiency since no duplicate address queries over the upstream link
are necessary (see:Section 3).
In the multi-addressing model, when requesting node 'R' receives
prefix 'P', it assigns the prefix to a virtual interface (e.g., a
loopback) instead of a physical or virtual downstream interface. 'R'
can then function under the weak end system (aka "weak host") model
[RFC1122][RFC8028] by assigning addresses taken from 'P' to virtual
interfaces as shown in Figure 2:
x
|
upstream link |
|
+----------+----------+
| upstream Interface |
+---------------------+
| |
| requesting node 'R' |
| |
+--+-+--+-+--+-----+--+
|A1| |A2| |A3| ... |An|
+--+-+--+-+--+-----+--+
| virtual Interface |
+---------------------+
Figure 2: Weak End System Model
'R' could instead function under the strong end system (aka "strong
host") model [RFC1122][RFC8028] by assigning IPv6 addresses taken
from 'P' to the upstream interface as shown in Figure 3:
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
x
|
upstream link |
|
+----------+----------+
| upstream interface |
+--+-+--+-+--+-----+--+
|A1| |A2| |A3| ... |An|
+--+-+--+-+--+-----+--+
| |
| requesting node 'R' |
| |
+---------------------+
| virtual interface |
+---------------------+
Figure 3: Strong End System Model
The major benefit for a node managing a delegated prefix in either
the weak or strong end system models is multi-addressing. With IPv6
PD-based multi-addressing, the node can configure an unlimited supply
of addresses to make them available for local applications without
requiring coordination with other nodes on upstream interfaces.
The following sections present considerations for nodes that employ
IPv6 PD mechanisms.
2. Terminology
The terminology of the normative references apply, and the terms
"node", "host" and "router" are the same as defined in [RFC8200].
The following terms are defined for the purposes of this document:
shared prefix
an IPv6 prefix that may be advertised to more than one node on the
link, e.g., in a Router Advertisement (RA) message Prefix
Information Option (PIO) [RFC4861]. The router that advertises
the prefix must consider the prefix as on-link so that the IPv6
Neighbor Discovery (ND) address resolution function will identify
the correct neighbor for each packet.
individual prefix
an IPv6 prefix that is advertised to exactly one node on the link,
where the node may be unaware that the prefix is individual and
may not participate in prefix maintenance procedures. The router
that advertises the prefix can consider the prefix as on-link or
not on-link. In the former case, the router performs address
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
resolution and only forwards those packets that match one of the
node's configured addresses so that the node will not receive
unwanted packets. In the latter case, the router can simply
forward all packets matching the prefix to the node which must
then drop any packets that do not match one of its configured
addresses. An example individual prefix service is documented in
[RFC8273].
delegated prefix
an IPv6 prefix that is explicitly conveyed to a node for its own
exclusive use, where the node is an active participant in prefix
delegation and maintenance procedures. The first-hop router
simply forwards all packets matching the prefix to the requesting
node. The requesting node associates the prefix with downstream
and/or internal virtual interfaces (i.e., and not the upstream
interface).
3. Multi-Addressing Considerations
IPv6 allows nodes to assign multiple addresses to a single interface.
[RFC7934] discusses options for multi-addressing as well as use cases
where multi-addressing may be desirable. Address configuration
options for multi-addressing include StateLess Address
AutoConfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862], Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) address configuration [RFC3315], manual
configuration, etc.
Nodes configure addresses from a shared or individual prefix and
assign them to the upstream interface over which the prefix was
received. When the node assigns the addresses, it is required to use
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810] to join the appropriate
solicited-node multicast group(s) and to use the Duplicate Address
Detection (DAD) algorithm [RFC4862] to ensure that no other node
configures a duplicate address.
In contrast, a node that configures addresses from a delegated prefix
can assign them without invoking MLD/DAD on an upstream interface,
since the prefix has been delegated to the node for its own exclusive
use and is not shared with any other nodes.
4. Multi-Addressing Alternatives for Delegated Prefixes
When a node receives a delegated prefix, it has many alternatives for
provisioning the prefix to its local interfaces and/or downstream
networks. [RFC7278] discusses alternatives for provisioning a prefix
obtained by a User Equipment (UE) device under the 3rd Generation
Partnership Program (3GPP) service model. This document considers
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
the more general case when the node receives a delegated prefix
explicitly provided for its own exclusive use.
When the node receives the prefix, it can distribute the prefix to
downstream networks and configure zero or more addresses for itself
on downstream interfaces. The node then acts as a router on behalf
of its downstream networks and configures a default route via a
neighbor on an upstream interface.
The node could instead (or in addition) use portions of the delegated
prefix for its own multi-addressing purposes. In a first
alternative, the node can assign as many addresses as it wants from
the prefix to virtual interfaces. In that case, applications running
on the node can use the addresses according to the weak end system
model.
In a second alternative, the node can assign as many addresses as it
wants from the prefix to the upstream interface over which the prefix
was received. In that case, applications running on the node can use
the addresses according to the strong end system model.
In both of these latter two cases, the node assigns the prefix itself
to a virtual interface so that unused portions of the prefix are
correctly identified as unreachable. The node then acts as a host on
behalf of its local applications even though neighbors on the
upstream link consider it as a router.
5. Address Autoconfiguration Considerations
Nodes that act according to the weak/strong host models as discussed
in the previous section autoconfigure addresses from delegated
prefixes according to Section 6 of IPv6 Node Requirements
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis].
As a recipient of a delegated prefix, the node is also required to
recognize the Subnet Router Anycast address [RFC4291]. Therefore,
the node's use of the Subnet Router Anycast address must be
indistinguishable from the behavior of an ordinary router when viewed
from the outside world.
6. MLD/DAD Implications
When a node configures addresses for itself from a shared or
individual prefix, it performs MLD/DAD by sending multicast messages
over upstream interfaces to test whether there is another node on the
link that configures a duplicate address. When there are many such
addresses and/or many such nodes, this could result in substantial
multicast traffic that affects all nodes on the link.
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
When a node configures addresses for itself from a delegated prefix,
it can configure as many addresses as it wants but does not perform
MLD/DAD for any of the addresses over upstream interfaces. This
means that the node can configure arbitrarily many addresses without
causing any multicast messaging over the upstream interface that
could disturb other nodes.
7. Dynamic Routing Protocol Implications
Nodes that receive delegated prefixes can be configured to either
participate or not participate in a dynamic routing protocol over the
upstream interface, according to the deployment model. When there
are many nodes on the upstream link, dynamic routing protocol
participation might be impractical due to scaling limitations, and
may also be exacerbated by factors such as node mobility.
Unless it participates in a dynamic routing protocol, the node
initially has only a default route pointing to a neighbor via an
upstream interface. This means that packets sent by the node over an
upstream interface will initially go through a default router even if
there is a better first-hop node on the link.
8. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Implications
When a node receives a shared or individual prefix with "L=1" and has
a packet to send to an IPv6 destination within the prefix, it is
required to use the IPv6 ND address resolution function over the
upstream interface to resolve the link-layer address of a neighbor
that configures the address. When a node receives a shared or
individual prefix with "L=0" and has a packet to send to an IPv6
destination within the prefix, if the address is not one of the
node's own addresses it sends the packet to a default router since
"L=0" makes no statement about on-link or off-link properties of the
prefix [RFC4861].
When a node receives a delegated prefix, it acts as a simple host to
send Router Solicitation (RS) messages over upstream interfaces
(i.e., the same as described in Section 4.2 of [RFC7084]) but also
sets the "Router" flag to TRUE in its Neighbor Advertisement
messages. The node considers the upstream interfaces as non-
advertising interfaces [RFC4861], i.e., it does not send RA messages
over the upstream interfaces. The node further does not perform the
IPv6 ND address resolution function over upstream interfaces, since
the delegated prefix is by definition not to be associated with an
upstream interface.
In all cases, the current first-hop router may send a Redirect
message that updates the node's neighbor cache so that future packets
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
can use a better first-hop node on the link. The Redirect can apply
either to a singleton destination address, or to an entire
destination prefix as described in [I-D.templin-6man-rio-redirect].
9. ICMPv6 Implications
The Internet Control Message Protocol for IPv6 (ICMPv6) includes a
set of control message types [RFC4443] including Destination
Unreachable (DU).
According to [RFC4443], routers should return DU messages (subject to
rate limiting) with code 0 ("No route to destination") when a packet
arrives for which there is no matching entry in the routing table,
and with code 3 ("Address unreachable") when the IPv6 destination
address cannot be resolved.
According to [RFC4443], hosts should return DU messages (subject to
rate limiting) with code 3 to internal applications when the IPv6
destination address cannot be resolved, and with code 4 ("Port
unreachable") if the IPv6 destination address is one of its own
addresses but the transport protocol has no listener.
Nodes that obtain and manage delegated prefixes per this document
observe the same procedures as described for both routers and hosts
above.
10. Prefix Delegation Services
Selection of prefix delegation services must be considered according
to specific use cases. An example service is that offered by DHCPv6
[RFC3633]. An alternative service based on IPv6 ND messaging has
also been proposed [I-D.pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit].
Other, non-router, mechanisms may exist, such as proprietary IPAMs,
[I-D.ietf-anima-prefix-management] and
[I-D.sun-casm-address-pool-management-yang].
11. IANA Considerations
This document introduces no IANA considerations.
12. Security Considerations
Security considerations for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] and any
applicable PD mechanisms apply to this document. Nodes that receive
delegated prefixes do not perform MLD/DAD procedures on their
upstream interfaces, meaning that they cannot contribute to multicast
messaging congestion on the upstream link. Also, routers that
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
delegate prefixes keep only a single neighbor cache entry for each
prefix delegation recipient, meaning that the router's neighbor cache
cannot be subject to resource exhaustion attacks.
For shared and individual prefixes, if the router that advertises the
prefix considers the prefix as on-link the IPv6 ND address resolution
function will prevent unwanted IPv6 packets from reaching the node.
For delegated prefixes and individual prefixes that are not
considered on-link, the router delivers all packets that match the
prefix to the unicast link-layer address of the node (i.e., as
determined by resolution of the node's link-local address) even if
they do not match one of the node's configured addresses. In that
case, the node may receive unwanted IPv6 packets via an upstream
interface that do not match either a configured IPv6 address or a
transport listener. The node then drops the packets and observes the
"Destination Unreachable - Address/Port unreachable" procedures
discussed in Section 9.
The node may also receive IPv6 packets via an upstream interface that
do not match any of the node's delegated prefixes. In that case, the
node drops the packets and observes the "Destination Unreachable - No
route to destination" procedures discussed in Section 9. Dropping
the packets is necessary to avoid a reflection attack that would
cause the node to forward packets received from an upstream interface
via the same or a different upstream interface.
In all cases, the node must decide whether or not to send DUs
according to the specific operational scenario. In trusted networks,
the node should send DU messages to provide useful information to
potential correspondents. In untrusted networks, the node can
refrain from sending DU messages to avoid providing sensitive
information to potential attackers.
13. Acknowledgements
This work was motivated by discussions on the v6ops list. Mark
Smith, Ricardo Pelaez-Negro, Edwin Cordeiro, Fred Baker, Ron Bonica,
Naveen Lakshman, Ole Troan, Bob Hinden, Brian Carpenter, Joel
Halpern, Albert Manfredi, Dusan Mudric and Paul Marks provided useful
comments that have greatly improved the document.
This work is aligned with the NASA Safe Autonomous Systems Operation
(SASO) program under NASA contract number NNA16BD84C.
This work is aligned with the FAA as per the SE2025 contract number
DTFAWA-15-D-00030.
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
This work is aligned with the Boeing Information Technology (BIT)
MobileNet program and the Boeing Research & Technology (BR&T)
enterprise autonomy program.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis]
Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-08 (work in
progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-anima-prefix-management]
Jiang, S., Du, Z., Carpenter, B., and Q. Sun, "Autonomic
IPv6 Edge Prefix Management in Large-scale Networks",
draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-07 (work in progress),
December 2017.
[I-D.pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit]
Kline, E. and M. Abrahamsson, "IPv6 Router Advertisement
Prefix Information Option eXclusive Flag", draft-
pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02 (work in progress),
March 2017.
[I-D.sun-casm-address-pool-management-yang]
Sun, Q., Xie, C., Boucadair, M., Peng, T., and Y. Lee, "A
YANG Data Model for Address Pool Management", draft-sun-
casm-address-pool-management-yang-00 (work in progress),
March 2017.
[I-D.templin-6man-rio-redirect]
Templin, F. and j. woodyatt, "Route Information Options in
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", draft-templin-6man-rio-
redirect-06 (work in progress), May 2018.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
[RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
/64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi,
"Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204,
RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7934>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.
[RFC8273] Brzozowski, J. and G. Van de Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix
per Host", RFC 8273, DOI 10.17487/RFC8273, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8273>.
Appendix A. Change Log
<< RFC Editor - remove prior to publication >>
Changes from -19 to -20:
o figure 1 updates to show Server as being somewhere in the network
o Introductory material to show relation to other RFCs on multi-
addressing
Changes from -18 to -19:
o added new section on Prefix Delegation Services
Changes from -17 to -18:
o re-worked discussion on the prefix delegation service in Section 1
o updated figures in Section 1
Changes from -16 to -17:
o added supporting text in the introduction to discuss the
Delegating Router's relationship with the Requesting Router and
with supporting intrastructure in the operator's network
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Prefix Delegation for Hosts May 2018
o updated figures in introduction to include representation of
operator's network
o added new section on Address Autoconfiguration Considerations
Author's Address
Fred L. Templin (editor)
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
USA
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Templin Expires November 30, 2018 [Page 14]