Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6
RFC 6214

Document Type RFC - Informational (March 2011; Errata)
Updates RFC 1149
Last updated 2013-05-29
Stream ISE
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream ISE state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 6214 (Informational)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Independent Submission                                      B. Carpenter
Request for Comments: 6214                             Univ. of Auckland
Category: Informational                                        R. Hinden
ISSN: 2070-1721                                     Check Point Software
                                                            1 April 2011

                    Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6

Abstract

   This document specifies a method for transmission of IPv6 datagrams
   over the same medium as specified for IPv4 datagrams in RFC 1149.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
   the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6214.

Copyright Notice

   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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Carpenter & Hinden            Informational                     [Page 1]
RFC 6214                    IPv6 and RFC 1149               1 April 2011

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Normative Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   3.  Detailed Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
     3.1.  Maximum Transmission Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
     3.2.  Frame Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.3.  Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.4.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Quality-of-Service Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Routing and Tunneling Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Multihoming Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     11.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     11.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.  Introduction

   As shown by [RFC6036], many service providers are actively planning
   to deploy IPv6 to alleviate the imminent shortage of IPv4 addresses.
   This will affect all service providers who have implemented
   [RFC1149].  It is therefore necessary, indeed urgent, to specify a
   method of transmitting IPv6 datagrams [RFC2460] over the RFC 1149
   medium, rather than obliging those service providers to migrate to a
   different medium.  This document offers such a specification.

2.  Normative Notation

   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].

3.  Detailed Specification

   Unless otherwise stated, the provisions of [RFC1149] and [RFC2460]
   apply throughout.

3.1.  Maximum Transmission Unit

   As noted in RFC 1149, the MTU is variable, and generally increases
   with increased carrier age.  Since the minimum link MTU allowed by
   RFC 2460 is 1280 octets, this means that older carriers MUST be used
   for IPv6.  RFC 1149 does not provide exact conversion factors between
   age and milligrams, or between milligrams and octets.  These

Carpenter & Hinden            Informational                     [Page 2]
RFC 6214                    IPv6 and RFC 1149               1 April 2011

   conversion factors are implementation dependent, but as an
   illustrative example, we assume that the 256 milligram MTU suggested
Show full document text